Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Philip L. Fraietta (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Alec M. Leslie (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Matthew A. Girardi (pro hac vice)
`Julian C. Diamond (pro hac vice)
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
`
` aleslie@bursor.com
` mgirardi@bursor.com
` jdiamond@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`V.R., a minor, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`ROBLOX CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02716-MMC
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`Plaintiff V.R., a minor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), brings this action on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated against Defendant Roblox Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred
`to as “Defendant” or “Roblox Corp.”). Plaintiff makes the following allegations pursuant to the
`investigation of his counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations
`specifically pertaining to himself, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`1.
`This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated who disaffirm their entire contracts with Defendant and seek restitution in the
`amount already paid to Defendant on their now-void contracts. By filing his original complaint on
`May 5, 2022, Plaintiff disaffirmed his entire contract with Defendant.
`2.
`Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered injury due to deceptive, misleading,
`and illegal trade practices by Defendant in marketing and selling in-game items and in-game
`currency for its popular video game, Roblox. These items and in-game currency are frequently
`purchased by minors who are unable to exercise their unrestricted right under state laws to rescind
`contracts into which they entered with Defendant.
`3.
`Additionally, even if Plaintiff and putative class members did not exercise their
`right to disaffirm their contracts with Defendant, purchases of in-game items and in-game currency
`in Roblox are void ab initio as a matter of law.
`4.
`Roblox is ostensibly free-to-play. However, Roblox realizes billions of dollars in
`revenue, largely from children.
`5.
`Roblox is monetized through a system where players can obtain new characters,
`weapons, and other resources in exchange for virtual currency. The in-game currency can be
`purchased from Defendant using real money.
`6.
`Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief under the
`Declaratory Judgment Act, Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and/or for Unjust
`Enrichment.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7.
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because this is a class action in which at least one member of
`the class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant, the amount in controversy exceeds $5
`million, exclusive of interest and costs, and the proposed class contains more than 100 members.
`8.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant
`maintains its principal place of business in this District and because a substantial part of the events
`or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this District.
`9.
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this District and
`because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`10.
`Plaintiff V.R. is a minor and a resident of California. Plaintiff, under his own name
`and using his own money, made multiple in-game purchases in Roblox. Plaintiff no longer plays
`Roblox and will not play Roblox in the future. Plaintiff made purchases both from Amazon.com
`and from Roblox directly. Plaintiff has purchased in-game currency from Defendant that he has
`since redeemed for in-game items, characters, weapons, and other resources.
`11.
`Defendant Roblox Corporation is Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`business in in San Mateo, California.
`
`GENERAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Roblox
`12.
`Roblox is an online game platform developed by Defendant.
`13.
`Roblox breaks away from the traditional pay-for-game model, wherein a consumer
`pays a one-time fee for a game and gains access to all of its features, and instead offers the game
`for free with the hopes that players purchase various in-game items. This is referred to as the free-
`to-play or “freemium” model.
`14.
`However, while Roblox can ostensibly be played without making in-game
`purchases, the game encourages impressionable minors to make in-game purchases. This is
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`because many of Roblox’s most desirable in-game items and avatars can only be obtained by
`purchasing the items with virtual currency referred to as “Robux.” Obtaining Robux generally
`requires users to purchase it with real money.
`15.
`This system was created to capitalize on and encourage addictive behaviors. Minors
`are especially susceptible to these addiction-enhancing elements of game design. The experience
`of acquiring in-game items holds a strong appeal for minors and reinforces their desire to keep
`playing and continue making purchases.
`16. Members of Congress have expressed concern about Defendant’s practices.
`Specifically, in letters released to the public, Congresswoman Lori Trahan, Congresswoman Kathy
`Castor, and Senator Edward J. Markey have asked Defendant, among other video game makers, to
`“make changes to [their] product or service’s design or data collection” to address “Loot boxes …
`[that] encourage[e] purchase before a child knows what the ‘bundle’ contains— akin to gambling.”
`See Exhibit A.
`17.
`Defendant’s strategy has been immensely successful, and Defendant is still growing.
`Roblox Corporation earned approximately $1,919,181,000 in 2021, which was a 108% increase
`over the company’s 2020 earnings.1 This increase was likely due to the fact that the “daily paying
`users increased from roughly 490,000 in 2020 to roughly 678,000 in 2021.”2
`18.
`Despite these massive profits, Defendant fails to provide an unrestricted right to
`seek refunds of any in-game purchases made by minors as is required by state law.
`19.
`Further, as detailed below, Plaintiff and the putative class’s contracts for the
`purchase of virtual currency and/or virtual goods are void as a matter of law.
`
`B.
`Defendant’s Misconduct
`20.
`Defendant misleads or misrepresents the applicable law for transactions, including
`in-App purchases, with minors. Specifically, Defendant knows that in the state of California, and
`in most states nationwide, the law allows minors to disaffirm contracts. Defendant also knows that
`
`1 2021 Form 10-k, Roblox Corporation,
`https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001315098/000131509822000058/rblx-
`20211231.htm (last accessed April 5, 2022)
`2 Id.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`a minor can disaffirm contracts without any restrictions; the law permits a minor to do so. And
`finally, Defendant knows that contracts with minors for “personal property not in the immediate
`possession or control of the minor[s]” are void under CA FAM §6701. Yet, Defendant operates a
`non-refund policy that misleads, misrepresents, and does not acknowledge a minor’s right to obtain
`a refund.
`21.
`To any extent that Roblox requires that its Terms of Use be accepted by legal adults
`18 years and older, Roblox still targets minors. An agreement that explicitly requires acceptance
`by an adult cannot apply to a minor, and minors have a legal right to disaffirm contracts into which
`they enter. And Roblox is aware its customers are minors – the player’s birthday is the first thing
`that a player enters when setting up a Roblox account: 3
`
`
`3 https://www.roblox.com/
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`22.
`The Roblox Terms of Use (“TOU”) state that “When User buys Robux, User
`receives only a limited, non-refundable, non-transferable … revocable license to use Robux only
`for User’s personal entertainment.”4
`23.
`The TOU also state that “All payments for Robux are final and not refundable.”5
`Defendant attempts to qualify this latter statement with “except as required by law,” but this
`qualifier does not specify that it has any effect on minors and does not appear in the section which
`describes differences between minor users and other users.6
`24.
`Defendant maintains both possession and control over both Robux and whichever
`items that users purchase with their Robux. Specifically, Defendant states “Roblox has and retains
`all rights in Robux. This includes the right to modify, revoke, or terminate a User’s license to use
`Robux without notice, payment, or liability to User.”7
`25.
`Robux can be purchased in the form of a digital code or a tangible card.
`26.
`Defendant additionally maintains possession and control of the purchases of
`Plaintiff and the Class by stating “Roblox owns or controls all rights in Studio and all elements
`contained therein.”8
`27.
`Defendant also “reserves the right to terminate the Studio License, Template
`License, Other Content License and Roblox Trademark License at any time and for any reason.”9
`28.
`Defendant thus contracts with Plaintiff and the class for “personal property not in
`the immediate possession or control of the minor[s].” CA FAM § 6701.
`29.
`After making purchases within the Roblox ecosystem, minors who attempt to
`request refunds thus find that none of their purchases can be refunded. Without hiring counsel,
`
`
`4 https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004647846-Roblox-Terms-of-Use (emphasis
`added).
`5 Id.
`6 Id., see sections 1(a); 2(a); 2(b); 18(b).
`7 Id.
`8 Id.
`9 Id.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`minor Class members and their guardians are not aware of a minor’s right to disaffirm and get
`refunds on in-game purchases.
`
`C.
`Defendant’s Illegal Refund Policy
`30.
`Roblox operates a policy of refusing refunds to minors who disaffirm their contracts
`with Defendant.
`31.
`In addition to accepting payment directly, Roblox also “accepts payment through
`iTunes, Xbox, Microsoft (Windows App or Xbox), and Amazon.”10
`32.
`However, Roblox outright refuses to refund minors who made payments via these
`providers. Specifically, Defendant states that “these charges cannot be refunded by Roblox.”11
`33.
`Instead, purchasers are told to “reach out directly to Apple/iTunes, Microsoft
`(Windows App or Xbox), or Amazon to request a refund for any unauthorized purchases through
`their services.”12
`34.
`However, these third-party refund policies are also in violation of California law.
`For example, Apple’s refund policy is handled on a case-by-case basis and does not permit an
`unrestricted right to a refund.
`35.
`In fact, Apple does not even permit minors to request refunds for unauthorized
`charges made more than 90 days ago.13
`36.
`Similarly, Amazon does not allow for returns of “Downloadable Software
`Products,” which includes purchases that Plaintiff made.14
`
`
`10 https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203312650-Unauthorized-Charges-Refund-
`Requests#h_01EM597YS5N3GVZQCVWY2YHPR9 (last accessed October 21, 2022).
`11 Id. (emphasis added).
`12 Id.
`13 https://www.switchingtomac.com/tutorials/how-to-get-a-refund-from-the-apple-app-store/ (“You
`have 90 days from the point of purchase to initiate a refund”) (last accessed October 21, 2022);
`https://www.idownloadblog.com/2021/12/07/how-to-request-refund-from-
`apple/#:~:text=You%20can%20make%20a%20refund,%2C%20music%2C%20movie%2C%20etc.
`(“It’s not guaranteed that you’ll always get a refund from Apple for a purchase.”) (last accessed
`October 21, 2022).
`14 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=GMZNGRA9B5PCJB5F
`(“Amazon.com doesn't accept returns of the following items: … Downloadable software products”)
`(last accessed October 21, 2022).
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`37.
`Additionally, Defendant has a policy that once Robux have been used to make an
`in-game purchase, no refunds will be provided.15 “This includes accidental purchases, lost and
`unused items from Avatar Shop and Experiences.”16 This policy applies even if a minor is willing
`to lose access to the in-game purchase.
`38.
`Defendant also claims to be unable to give refunds for in-app purchases that were
`removed from the game.17
`39.
`There are countless documented incidents where Roblox refused to provide refunds
`to minors who made purchases on the app. For example, in March 2021, it was reported that an
`11-year-old accumulated a bill of over $3,000 by making in-app purchases.18 When a refund was
`requested, Defendant declined to provide one. Instead, the report stated that Defendant “stuck by
`all refund policies.”19
`40.
`Defendant’s true policy seems to be that refunds are only available for
`“unauthorized charges.”20 A child who made an authorized purchase and simply wishes to exercise
`his or her unrestricted right to disaffirm a contract and obtain a refund, is unable to, according to
`Defendant itself.
`
`
`15 https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203313290-Will-I-Get-My-Robux-Back-If-I-Delete-
`Do-Not-Like-an-Item- (“At this time, there is not a way to get Robux back once you have made a
`purchase .... we are not able to offer a refund for items purchased within an experience.”) (last
`accessed October 14, 2022).
`16 Id.
`17 https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203313290-Will-I-Get-My-Robux-Back-If-I-Delete-
`Do-Not-Like-an-Item-
`#:~:text=Please%20keep%20in%20mind%20that%20items%20that%20are%20moderated%20or%
`20removed%20from%20access%20by%20the%20creator%20may%20not%20be%20eligible%20f
`or%20refund.%C2%A0 (“Please keep in mind that items that are moderated or removed from
`access by the creator may not be eligible for refund.”)
`18 https://www.thegamer.com/child-buys-3000-dollars-dlc-roblox-app/ (last accessed October
`2022).
`19 Id.
`20 https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203312650-Unauthorized-Charges-Refund-Requests
`(last accessed October 14, 2022).
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`41.
`Dozens of complaints about Defendant’s conduct with respect to refunds have been
`submitted to the Federal Trade Commission.21 In many of these complaints, Defendant even failed
`to follow its own refund policies as to unauthorized purchases made from hacked accounts. The
`common theme amongst these complaints is that Defendant will simply not answer a request for a
`refund.
`42.
`In sum, Defendant does not operate a uniform policy of allowing minors who
`disaffirm their contract to receive a full refund, as is required by law.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCE
`43.
`Before hiring counsel in this action, Plaintiff was not aware of a minor’s right to
`disaffirm and request a refund.
`44. Within the last year Plaintiff made multiple in-game purchases of Robux in Roblox,
`using his own money and without the consent of his parent(s).
`45.
`Despite spending money on in-game purchases, Plaintiff did not receive any items
`that had real value. Plaintiff regrets these purchases and wishes to obtain a full refund. Plaintiff no
`longer plays Roblox and has no desire to resume playing Roblox.
`46.
`After making his purchases, Plaintiff wanted to disaffirm them and request a refund.
`However, he was not able to do so under Roblox’s refund policy, which states that a “[w]hen a
`User buys Robux, User receives only a limited, non-refundable, non-transferable … revocable
`license to use Robux only for User’s personal entertainment.”
`47.
`Once his parent retained counsel on his behalf to determine if his purchases could be
`recovered, Plaintiff and his parent read and reviewed the statement in the TOU that “[w]hen User
`buys Robux, User receives only a limited, non-refundable, non-transferable … revocable license to
`use Robux only for User’s personal entertainment,” and that “[a]ll payments for Robux are final
`and not refundable.”
`
`
`21 https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Consumer-complaints-against-
`Roblox-submitted-to-the-FTC.pdf (last accessed October 21, 2022).
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`48.
`Because Plaintiff made multiple purchases on Roblox through Amazon, Plaintiff
`and his parent also reviewed the Amazon refund policy, and found that it does not allow for
`refunds for purchases of “Downloadable Software Products” which includes Robux purchases.
`49.
`Had Defendant provided proper parental control and age verification features,
`Plaintiff would not have been able to make any of the purchases that he did. Defendant could also
`implement features to allow minors to obtain refunds for purchases based on their unrestricted right
`to disaffirm contracts and/or based upon the fact that minors’ purchases of Robux and virtual goods
`in Roblox are void as a matter of law.
`50.
`Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s representations regarding non-refundability for
`purchases.
`51.
`
`Plaintiff has felt dissatisfied with purchases that he made within Roblox.
`
`52.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as:
`All persons in the United States who, at any time while under the age
`of 18, (a) exchanged in-game virtual currency for any in-game benefit
`within Roblox, or (b) made a purchase of virtual currency or other in-
`game benefit for use within Roblox.
`
`53.
`Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors,
`agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals,
`servants, partners, joint ventures, or entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, successors,
`assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant’s
`officers and/or directors, the judge assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s
`immediate family.
`54.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend the class definition,
`including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with his motion for class
`certification, or at any other time, based on, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts
`obtained.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`Numerosity. On information and belief, hundreds of thousands of consumers fall
`55.
`into the definitions of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendant’s
`records, discovery, and other third-party sources.
`Commonality and Predominance. Common questions of law and fact exist as to
`56.
`all members of the Class and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of
`the Class. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`a. Whether Defendant's failure to provide a method for minors or their guardians to
`disaffirm any purchases violated their consumer rights;
`b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are able to disaffirm their contracts with Defendant,
`including those made through third-party payment platforms, and obtain a refund
`through the Declaratory Judgment Act;
`c. Whether Plaintiff’s and the other Class members’ contracts for the purchase of
`virtual currency and/or goods are void as a matter of law;
`d. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members were damaged by Defendant’s
`conduct; and
`e. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to restitution or other
`relief.
`Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the
`57.
`Class in that, among other things, all Class members were similarly situated and were comparably
`injured through Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set forth herein. Further, there are no defenses
`available to Defendant that are unique to Plaintiff.
`Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the
`58.
`interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel that is highly experienced in complex
`consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf
`of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class.
`Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair and
`59.
`efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by
`individual Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense of individual
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`litigation of their claims against Defendant. It would thus be virtually impossible for the Class
`obtain effective redress for the wrongs committed against the members on an individual basis.
`Furthermore, even if Class members could afford such individualized litigation, the court system
`could not. Individualized litigation would create the danger of inconsistent or contradictory
`judgments arising from the same set of facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the
`delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the issues raised by this action. By
`contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single
`proceeding, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no
`unusual management difficulties under the circumstances.
`60.
`Further, Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
`the proposed Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect
`to the Class as a whole.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`COUNT I
`Declaratory Judgment on Minor’s Right to Disaffirm
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`The foregoing allegations are hereby reincorporated by reference as if fully restated
`
`61.
`herein.
`62.
`Defendant’s Roblox video game is approved for players 7 years and older.
`Defendant enters into and accepts a contract with a minor when an in-game purchase by the minor
`is confirmed, and thus accepted.
`63.
`There is consideration on both sides of this contract. Roblox gives the consideration
`of digital content and entertainment service of the in-game purchases, exchanged for consideration
`of actual money from the minor.
`64.
`Under California law, and equivalent law in states nationwide, minors have the right
`to disaffirm contracts such as those at issue here. Cal. Fam. Code § 6710 (2010).
`65. Minors may disaffirm or a guardian may disaffirm a contract on behalf of a minor
`within a reasonable amount of time of turning 18. Through the filing of this lawsuit, and thus by
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`no later than the filing date of this lawsuit, Plaintiff disaffirmed all in-game purchases he has made
`through Roblox to-date and requested a refund.
`66.
`Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the Class for future and
`prospective transactions on the Roblox video gaming platform and ecosystem to allow for refunds
`on all in-game purchases without restrictions.
`67.
`The contracts between Defendant and the members of the Class who are minors are
`voidable—a fact that Defendant denies as evidenced by its denial of the Class’s right to be
`refunded in its Terms of Use.
`68.
`As outlined above, Defendant does not operate a uniform policy of allowing minors
`who disaffirm their contract to receive a full refund, as is required by law. Rather, Defendant
`operates a refund policy that regularly denies minors who disaffirm their contracts their
`unrestricted right to a refund.
`69.
`Accordingly, there is an actual controversy between the parties, requiring a
`declaratory judgment.
`70.
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for this claim. There is no commensurate
`legal remedy for voidance of Plaintiff’s contract and full restitution and interest thereon.
`Alternatively, legal remedies available to Plaintiff are inadequate because they are not “equally
`prompt and certain and in other ways efficient” as equitable relief. American Life Ins. Co. v.
`Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 214 (1937); see also U.S. v. Bluitt, 815 F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
`6, 1992) (“the ‘mere existence’ of a possible legal remedy is not sufficient to warrant denial of
`equitable relief”); Quist v. Empire Water Co., 2014 Cal. 646, 643 (1928) (“The mere fact that there
`may be a remedy at law does not oust the jurisdiction of a court of equity. To have this effect, the
`remedy must also be speedy, adequate, and efficacious to the end in view … It must reach the
`whole mischief and secure the whole right of the party in a perfect manner at the present time and
`not in the future”). Furthermore:
`a.
`To the extent damages are available here, damages are not equally certain as
`restitution because the standard that governs ordering restitution is different
`than the standard that governs damages. Hence, the Court may award
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`c.
`
`b.
`
`restitution even if it determines that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently adduce
`evidence to support an award of damages.
`Damages and restitution are not necessarily the same amount. Unlike
`damages, restitution is not limited to the amount of money defendant
`wrongfully acquired plus the legal rate of interest. Equitable relief, including
`restitution, entitles the plaintiff to recover all profits from the wrongdoing,
`even where the original funds taken have grown far greater than the legal
`rate of interest would recognize. Plaintiff seeks such relief here.
`Legal claims for damages are not equally certain as restitution because
`claims under the UCL and unjust enrichment entail few elements.
`d.
`Plaintiff also lacks an adequate remedy at law to prevent future harm.
`71.
`This claim for declaratory judgment is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`seeking a determination by the Court that: (a) this action may proceed and be maintained as a class
`action; (b) the sales contracts between Defendant and Class members who are minors, relating to
`the purchase of in-game currency and virtual items, are voidable at the option of those Class
`members or their guardians; (c) if the Class members elect to void the contracts, they will be
`entitled to restitution and interest thereon; (d) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
`suit to Plaintiff and the Class is appropriate; and such other and further relief as is necessary and
`just may be appropriate as well.
`
`COUNT II
`Declaratory Judgment on Minor’s Inability to Contract For Personal Property
`Not In Their Immediate Possession Or Control
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`The foregoing allegations are hereby reincorporated by reference as if fully restated
`
`72.
`
`herein.
`
`73.
`As described above, Defendant contracted with Plaintiff and the class members,
`who are minors.
`74.
`Defendant’s contracts with minor Plaintiff and class members include contracts for
`the purchase of Robux and virtual items.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 33 Filed 10/21/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`75.
`Robux can be purchased from Defendant in the form of tangible gift cards or
`intangible codes.
`76.
`California law recognizes both “intangible personal property” and “tangible
`personal property.” See, e.g., CA REV & TAX § 6011(10)(A)-(C); CA REV & TAX § 6016.
`77.
`According to California Law, a “minor cannot … [m]ake a contract relating to any
`personal property not in the immediate possession or control of the minor.” CA FAM § 6701.
`78.
`Both Robux and any virtual item sold to Plaintiff and class members are personal
`property.
`79.
`According to Defendant’s Terms of Use, Defendant explicitly maintains possession
`and/or control over the Robux and virtual items sold to Plaintiff and the class members as
`discussed supra.
`80.
`Thus, according to California law, the contracts for these purchases are void and
`Plaintiff and class members are entitled to a refund of the consideration paid under their contracts
`with Defendant.
`81.
`Defendant disputes that these contracts are void – as evidenced by the fact that
`Defendant’s TOU claim that all purchases are non-refundable and the fact that Defendant does not
`maintain any mechanism for users who contracted with Defendant as minors to obtain refunds.
`82.
`Accordingly, there is an actual controversy between the parties, requiring a
`declaratory judgment.
`83.
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for this claim. There is no commensurate
`legal remedy for full restitution and interest thereupon the void contract. Alternatively, legal
`remedies available to Plaintiff are inadequate because they are not “equally prompt and certain and
`in other ways efficient” as equitable relief. American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 214
`(1937); see also U.S. v. Bluitt, 815 F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 1992) (“the ‘mere
`existence’ of a possible legal remedy is not sufficient to warrant denial of equitable relief”); Quist
`v. Empire Water Co., 2014 Cal. 646, 643 (1928) (“The mere fact that there may be a r