Roblox Lawsuits: Understanding Platform Negligence Legal Claims

As of November 2025, more than 30 lawsuits have been filed against Roblox Corporation in federal courts across the United States. These cases contain allegations that the gaming platform may have failed to implement adequate safety measures to protect minor users from certain risks. The litigation represents a legal test of platform liability law and whether online companies can be held accountable for specific design choices.

Roblox operates one of the world's largest user-generated gaming platforms, with approximately 85 million daily active users. The company states that roughly 40% of users are children under the age of 13. The platform is marketed as a family-friendly environment where children can play games, create content, and socialize. The pending lawsuits question whether certain platform design choices may have created conditions plaintiffs characterize as unsafe.

Allegations in Roblox Litigation

The lawsuits filed against Roblox pursue several legal theories. Each targets different aspects of what plaintiffs characterize as potential safety shortcomings.

Negligence claims form the foundation of most cases. These complaints allege that Roblox may have owed a duty of care to minor users and potentially breached that duty by allegedly failing to implement what plaintiffs describe as industry-standard safety measures. The complaints cite specific technologies and practices that plaintiffs claim exist in the marketplace but were allegedly not implemented by Roblox.

According to the lawsuits, these may include robust age verification systems, advanced content filtering, pattern detection for concerning behavior, adequate human review of flagged interactions, and timely response to safety reports. Plaintiffs argue that when a company creates a platform designed for children and markets it as safe, the company may assume a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to address foreseeable risks.

Learn more about platform negligence legal theory

Fraudulent misrepresentation claims focus on statements Roblox allegedly made to parents and users about platform safety. Plaintiffs contend that the company's marketing materials, parental guidance documents, and public statements emphasized safety and child protection. The lawsuits suggest that if internal documents show company executives allegedly knew these representations may have overstated actual safety conditions, families may have potential fraud claims.

Understanding gaming platform claims

Product liability claims treat the Roblox platform as a product that plaintiffs allege was defectively designed. Under product liability law, manufacturers can potentially be held responsible when they allegedly design products in ways that create foreseeable risks to users. These claims argue that specific design choices may have created what plaintiffs characterize as an unreasonably dangerous product.

Failure to warn claims allege that even if certain design choices were not per se negligent, the company may have known about specific risks and allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings. While the platform includes some safety guidance, plaintiffs argue these warnings may have significantly understated risks children could face while using the service.

Understanding your legal rights

Platform Design Allegations

The lawsuits contain specific allegations about how Roblox allegedly designed and operated its platform. Understanding these allegations is key to understanding the legal claims.

Age verification systems are a primary concern in the complaints. Plaintiffs allege that Roblox's age verification may have been minimal—essentially relying on users to self-report their age without meaningful verification. The lawsuits suggest this allegedly allowed adults to create accounts representing themselves as children, and vice versa. Plaintiffs contend that technology exists for more robust age verification but that these systems were allegedly not implemented.

Communication features on the platform allegedly enabled private messaging between users with what plaintiffs characterize as minimal oversight. The complaints argue this feature may have created opportunities for inappropriate contact between users. The lawsuits suggest that more restrictive communication settings were allegedly technically feasible but not implemented.

Content moderation systems allegedly may not have kept pace with the volume of user-generated content on the platform, according to the complaints. Plaintiffs contend that Roblox's moderation may have been inadequate relative to the scale of the platform and the age of its user base.

Reporting mechanisms allegedly may have suffered from significant delays, according to the lawsuits. The complaints suggest that when users or parents reported concerning behavior or content, these reports often allegedly went unreviewed for extended periods.

Safety resource allocation is another focus of the litigation. Plaintiffs suggest that internal documents may show how the company allegedly allocated resources between growth-focused engineering and trust and safety operations. The lawsuits contend that if these documents reveal that safety was allegedly systematically deprioritized, this could support claims of negligent operation.

The Section 230 Defense

Roblox is expected to rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law providing broad immunity to internet platforms for content created by third-party users. This statute was designed to enable online platforms to host user content without becoming liable for everything users post.

Section 230 states that no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. Courts have interpreted this broadly, dismissing many claims against platforms based on third-party content.

However, Section 230 has recognized limits. The statute protects platforms from liability for content created by users, but courts have held that it may not protect platforms from liability for their own alleged conduct. The distinction is between what users do (post content) and what platforms allegedly do (design features, make operational decisions).

In the Roblox litigation, plaintiffs argue their claims target the platform's alleged design and operational choices, not user-generated content. Allegations about what plaintiffs characterize as inadequate age verification, allegedly unsafe communication features, and what plaintiffs describe as insufficient moderation focus on decisions Roblox allegedly made about how to structure its service.

Whether courts will accept this distinction remains to be seen. Much depends on how judges interpret the line between conduct and content, and whether they view platform design choices as sufficiently separate from user content to avoid Section 230 immunity.

Evidence and Discovery in Roblox Cases

The discovery process in these lawsuits will likely focus on internal Roblox documents and communications. Plaintiffs will seek materials showing what company executives allegedly knew about safety risks, when they allegedly knew it, and what decisions were allegedly made in response.

Internal safety reports and metrics will be critical. Plaintiffs anticipate that Roblox maintains data on safety incidents, user reports, content moderation actions, and platform violations. Discovery may reveal information about safety issues on the platform and how conditions allegedly changed over time.

Communications between executives may potentially show decision-making processes around safety investments, according to plaintiffs. If documents allegedly reveal that safety concerns were raised internally but dismissed, plaintiffs argue this would support negligence claims.

Budget and resource allocation documents may demonstrate the company's priorities, according to the lawsuits. Plaintiffs suggest that comparing spending on different departments could help establish priorities.

Technical capability analyses will examine what safety measures plaintiffs claim were technically feasible at various points in time. Expert witnesses will likely testify about what plaintiffs characterize as industry-standard practices.

What evidence may be needed for your case

Multidistrict Litigation Proceedings

A motion has been filed to consolidate the federal Roblox lawsuits into multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a hearing for December 4, 2025, to consider this consolidation request.

If approved, all federal Roblox cases would be transferred to a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. This would streamline discovery, avoid duplicative motions, and create efficiencies for both plaintiffs and defendants.

The MDL judge would likely select several "bellwether" cases for early trial. These test cases help both sides evaluate the strength of their legal positions and may lead to settlement negotiations. Bellwether trials could begin in late 2026 or 2027 if the MDL is approved.

For individual plaintiffs, MDL consolidation may mean access to pooled legal resources, shared expert testimony, and comprehensive discovery. However, it may also mean their specific case takes longer to resolve as the broader litigation progresses through coordinated proceedings.

Roblox's Response and Safety Updates

Roblox Corporation has publicly stated that child safety is a priority and has denied the allegations in pending lawsuits. Following public attention to safety concerns, Roblox announced new safety features in November 2024, including enhanced parental controls, updated content moderation policies, improved reporting tools, and additional account verification measures.

The company maintains that it has always taken safety seriously and that it complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Roblox has stated that it actively works to remove inappropriate content and behavior from its platform.

The effectiveness and implementation of the November 2024 updates remain subjects of ongoing evaluation. Whether these changes address the concerns raised in litigation will likely be examined as cases proceed.

Industry Standards and Platform Responsibilities

A key issue in these cases is what safety measures plaintiffs contend should be considered "industry standard" for platforms serving children. Expert witnesses will likely testify about practices at what plaintiffs characterize as comparable platforms, available technologies, and regulatory guidance.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) establishes certain requirements for platforms serving children under 13, including verifiable parental consent and restrictions on data collection. However, COPPA focuses primarily on privacy rather than safety, leaving many safety practices to platform discretion.

Federal Trade Commission guidance exists on certain design practices. Plaintiffs may reference this guidance in arguing for certain safety standards.

Technology companies in other sectors implement various identity verification and security systems. Plaintiffs argue that similar investments may be reasonable for platforms serving children, though courts have not ruled on this question.

Understanding the lawsuit process

Financial Context

Roblox Corporation is a publicly traded company that generates substantial annual revenue. The company's financial capacity may be relevant to evaluating what plaintiffs characterize as negligence claims, as negligence law may consider whether safety measures were reasonable given available resources.

Plaintiffs argue that a large corporation with substantial resources potentially faces different expectations than a small startup with limited funds. The company's spending priorities may be scrutinized during litigation.

Implications for Platform Liability Law

The Roblox cases represent what legal observers characterize as an important test of whether platforms can be held liable for design-based negligence claims despite Section 230 protections. The outcomes may influence how courts approach similar cases involving other platforms.

If plaintiffs succeed, it could potentially establish that platforms have certain duties to design their services with reasonable safety measures. If Roblox prevails on Section 230 grounds, it may reinforce existing platform immunity interpretations.

Information About Case Qualification

Families considering whether to consult with an attorney should understand what types of situations may potentially be relevant to these lawsuits. Generally, cases being evaluated involve situations where plaintiffs allege platform design failures may have contributed to harm, where plaintiffs claim the platform allegedly had knowledge of risks, where safety representations are alleged to have been misleading, or where plaintiffs contend industry-standard protections were allegedly not implemented.

The legal process typically begins with a case evaluation by attorneys. If an attorney determines a case may be viable, a complaint may be filed detailing alleged platform failures. Discovery follows, during which both sides exchange evidence and take depositions. Expert witnesses may provide testimony. Most cases settle before trial, though some proceed to verdict.

Many platform-related cases are handled on contingency fee arrangements, meaning families typically pay no upfront legal fees. Attorneys are compensated only if there is a recovery through settlement or verdict.

Request informational materials about case evaluation

Current Status and Timeline

As of November 2025, Roblox litigation remains in early stages. The December MDL hearing may shape the trajectory of federal cases. Discovery is beginning, and substantive legal motions on Section 230 and other defenses have not yet been fully briefed or decided.

The legal questions these cases present are novel. Courts will need to interpret existing statutes in the context of modern platform design and child safety. The outcomes may have implications for how platforms approach safety obligations.

No court has issued final rulings on the merits of these claims. All allegations remain unproven, and Roblox denies wrongdoing.