Didn’t Disney try this with a Disney+ account and a wrongful death at Disneyland?
But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.
In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.
Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.
My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.
Children under a certain age are not able to sign valid contracts. Not sure about this jurisdiction (some of those laws in the US are crazy and the article is not mentioning where this is based) But in most civilized countries every lawyer should know that such an argument is silly.
I’ll bet you it holds up.
There is no legal basis in which an 8 year old can sign and be held liable in a contract, especially for something like an Eula in a video game. Terms and agreements don’t tend to hold up in court when adults break them, I can’t imagine it holds up at all for a child.
This will be the case that sets the legal precedent.
I’ll take that bet
