V.R. v. Roblox Corporation
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:22-cv-02716
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In V.R. v. Roblox, Judge Chesney granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint because V.R.’s refund claims were not ripe.
V.R.’s four claims against Roblox Corporation were dismissed because the court found them not ripe; the court did not grant further leave to amend.
What happened
In V.R. v. Roblox Corporation, V.R., a minor, alleged that he made multiple purchases of Roblox’s virtual currency with his own money and wanted a full refund. He brought four claims seeking declarations, restitution, and an injunction requiring Roblox to allow unrestricted refunds.
The court explained that a dispute is not ready for judicial decision when it depends on future events that may not happen. V.R. had not alleged that he asked Roblox for a refund or that Roblox denied one. The court also rejected his argument that requesting a refund would have been futile based on Roblox’s policies and the allegations in his complaint.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss because the claims were not ripe. The court dismissed the First Amended Class Action Complaint without further leave to amend.
The detailed version
- V.R. v. Roblox Corporation · No. 3:22-cv-02716
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
V.R., identified in the opinion as a minor, alleged that he made multiple purchases on Roblox, an online game platform, using his own name and money. He said he regretted the purchases and sought a full refund.
The First Amended Class Action Complaint asserted four counts: (1) a declaration that V.R. could cancel his contract as a minor; (2) a declaration that he could not contract for personal property not in his immediate possession or control; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (4) restitution or unjust enrichment. He sought a declaration of liability, repayment of the amounts paid to Roblox, and an injunction requiring Roblox to permit refunds for all in-game purchases without restrictions.
Ruling
Roblox moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint. The court applied the requirement of ripeness, which asks whether a dispute is sufficiently developed for a court to decide it. A court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute that depends on future events that may not occur.
The court had previously dismissed V.R.’s original complaint because he had not alleged that he requested a refund and Roblox denied the request, but it allowed him to amend. The court found that the amended complaint did not cure that problem. V.R. still did not allege that he had requested a refund or that Roblox had refused one.
The court also rejected V.R.’s argument that making a refund request would have been futile. Although V.R. alleged that Roblox did not have a uniform policy allowing minors to receive full refunds, the court distinguished a case involving a stated non-refundability policy. The court noted that Roblox’s Terms of Use described payments for its virtual currency as final and nonrefundable except as required by law, and that V.R. alleged Roblox knew California law allows minors to cancel contracts. The court therefore found no facts showing that a refund request would have been futile.
Disposition
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss because the claims were not ripe. The court dismissed the First Amended Class Action Complaint without further leave to amend.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.