In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit last week affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a class action against Roblox, a video game platform, based on allegations that Roblox unlawfully denies minors refunds for their purchases of Robux, a virtual currency that users buy to obtain new characters, weapons, and other in-game benefits.
The court held that the named plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief, since he did not currently play Roblox or have any intent to do so in the future. It also held that the plaintiff lacked standing for his claim for declaratory relief. The plaintiff claimed that filing the lawsuit constituted disaffirmance of his contract with Roblox, entitling him to a refund. Roblox did not dispute this, though, and agreed he was now entitled to a refund. The underlying claims in the lawsuit, though, were not based on Roblox’s failure to grant refunds after disaffirmance, though, so the court found the plaintiff could not use disaffirmance as a basis for standing.
The court did find the plaintiff had standing to challenge Roblox’s alleged wrongful possession of his money under the theory that the contract was void ab initio under California Family Code 6701(c), which precludes minors from making contracts “relating to any personal property not in the immediate possession or control of the minor.” On the merits, though, the court rejected the applicability of 6701(c) to the contract between Roblox and its users, noting that the plaintiff’s interpretation “would largely preclude minors from purchasing software agreements.”
Finally, the court found there were no plausible allegations that Roblox had a policy of unlawfully denying refunds to disaffirming minors, or that there was any actionable misrepresentation by Roblox.