V.R. v. Roblox Corporation

Background

V.R., a minor, alleged that he made multiple in-game purchases on Roblox, an online game platform, using his own name and money. He later regretted the purchases and sought a full refund. The complaint alleged that Roblox did not provide minors an unrestricted right to seek refunds.

V.R. asserted four counts: declaratory judgment concerning a minor’s right to cancel a contract; declaratory judgment concerning a minor’s ability to contract for personal property not in the minor’s immediate possession or control; violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and restitution or unjust enrichment. He sought repayment of the amounts paid to Roblox and an injunction requiring Roblox to allow refunds for all in-game purchases without restrictions.

Motion and Analysis

Roblox moved to dismiss on the ground that V.R.’s claims were not ripe. Ripeness is a subject-matter-jurisdiction requirement that asks whether a dispute has developed enough for a court to decide it. The court explained that a claim is not ripe when it depends on future events that may not occur or when there is no live dispute.

The court found that V.R. did not allege that he requested a refund before filing suit or that Roblox denied such a request. Although V.R. alleged that filing the complaint itself constituted a refund request, he cited no authority establishing that a complaint could create a case or controversy in the first instance.

V.R. also relied on his allegation that Roblox had a policy against refunds to minors. Roblox countered with a declaration from its Senior Director of Product and a copy of its Terms of Use. The declaration stated that Roblox had not and would not reject a refund request for purchases made by a user as a minor, and that V.R. would have received a refund for purchases he made as a minor if he had requested one before filing suit. V.R. did not offer evidence countering Roblox’s showing.

Disposition

The court concluded that there was no showing that Roblox had denied or would deny a refund request from V.R. Because all of V.R.’s claims sought an order requiring Roblox to provide a refund, the court held that the claims were not ripe for adjudication.

The court granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court stated that it was unclear how V.R. could correct the identified deficiencies, it allowed him to file a First Amended Complaint by October 21, 2022. The court also continued the case-management conference from November 4, 2022, to January 13, 2023.