Roblox is urging a federal judge to dismiss claims that its platform facilitated illegal gambling through third-party virtual casinos. The lawsuit, brought by parents in a proposed class action, alleges that children were able to use the company’s in-game currency, Robux, to place wagers on external sites.
Plaintiffs state that Roblox charges a 30% fee when users buy virtual content (Robux), which can then be used on these virtual casinos. They go on to state that Roblox could have prevented these third-party sites from allowing this. For example, since kids don’t have to verify their age on these sites, they could just create an account and use their Robux.
At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wondered whether California’s gambling laws apply to this case, raising questions about whether Roblox was actually responsible for activity that happened outside its direct control.
Roblox has emphasized that it does not operate with these virtual casino sites in question, and argues that the criminal statutes related to illegal gambling do not apply to its business model.
The plaintiffs’ complaint relies on California’s Penal Code relating to illegal gambling operations, which make it illegal to engage in or profit from games of chance that involve money. In this case, it’s virtual currency with Robux, but you still need to purchase this. Roblox argues that these laws target actual gaming platforms, not those with virtual currency that is then used on other sites.
Roblox is trying to limit its legal risk by distancing itself from the virtual casinos. It argues that the plaintiffs are stretching criminal laws into civil claims in a way lawmakers never intended.
into civil claims in a way the legislature never intended. This is why Roblox has requested that this case be dismissed.
Even if the court dismisses the illegal gambling allegations, the lawsuit is unlikely to end there. The plaintiffs may continue to pursue claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). This allows civil actions for business practices considered unlawful, even if they do not fall under criminal statutes.
This means Roblox could still face legal consecuquences based on how it profits from Robux transactions. This is especially the case with its 30% transaction fee and its flow to other sites.
The UCL provides a broad legal framework that often survives when more narrowly defined statutory claims falter. As a result, even without a direct finding of illegal gambling, the plaintiffs could be successful. They may argue that Roblox’s practices create an unfair marketplace for consumers. This is especially the case with minors who make up a most of their user base.
How this case is resolved may establish boundaries on Roblox liability. It could force them to look more closely on how Robux is used in unregulated online environments.
