Can an 8-year-old waive their rights to sue a company by clicking a box?
That’s the stance of Roblox, an online gaming platform that bills itself as a digital playground.
The argument comes as the $41-billion company is embroiled in a lawsuit with the family of a Northern Kentucky child whose death by suicide, her mother says, is related to use of the platform.
Minors can’t waive rights. Or, in theory they can’t waive rights because they don’t have capacity. That’s my understanding
In my country nobody can waive rights, by default no contract is able to take any rights from you
I’m no expert, but my Business Law professors were absolutely adamant about the fact that a minor can never execute a legal agreement and there are no exceptions.
Even if the parent leaves a contract out with a stamped envelope and tells their kid to sign it and mail it off, the contract is null and void. If my professors were correct and things haven’t changed, I can’t imagine a child can waive their (or their parents) rights by clicking a checkbox either.
Children aren’t legally allowed to enter into contracts. How are their lawyers this stupid? Are they just getting their arguments from chatbots?
I’m confused, even if the girl could waive her rights and that is legally a valid argument - she is not the one who’s excersizing her right to sue the company right? Does that right extend beyond death or would such a contract also extend to others who have not signed anything?
Also what the fuck, their stance is they can’t be sued, instead of they’re not guilty. I mean i’m not guilty and the parents can’t sue me, but if they wanted to my defense would surely be that i had nothing to do with it - not that they can’t sue me.
The fast talking lawyers were hoping no one would notice what you just pointed out.
Actually they can sue you. Anyone can sue anyone else over anything. It’s whether the lawsuit or not has any merits and will be carried on is what decides that. If you have a lot of money and want to fuck over a poor person sue them for nothing. The poors still have to spend all their money defending themselves against nothing or else they’re in contempt of court and you get the satisfaction of destroying them financially forever. No crime, but the poors still get punished.
Over here:
A) you have a legal right to legal representation, there is a social justice system where lawyers work for a set price.
B) if you bring something to court, you have to pay a few, also if the case gets dismissed.
C) Not bringing a lawyer does not automatically mean someone is in contempt of court.And i believe there is some law here where you got be charged for a crime if you harras people, i think this would be triggered after your third or fourth frivolous suit.
Poor people are fucked over all the time, but over here not because they’re sued by someone with money for no reason.
Roblox really seems to be the end boss of evil game companies. The competition is certainly steep but they never cease to amaze me with how low they‘re willing to go for a few bucks more.
It depends on the judge. Click-wrapped ToS, EULAs and privacy policies are a known dark pattern:
They’re longer than Shakespearean plays.
They’re difficult to read even at a college level.
They’re often presented in a tiny window with difficult controls.
They’re presented suddenly and mid process, often as part of an already lengthy string of steps. Often the user is eager to just move on.Some judges have recognized this and do not see click-wrapped contracts as binding, especially when the person clicking them can be a child, or a cat, or a computer glitch.
But then a lot of judges were appointed through a willful organized effort to put pro-business judges on the bench, and will rule in the favor of companies over individuals regardless of the circumstances.
And some, like the majority of SCOTUS judges will literally make stuff up so they can legislate from the bench as they’ve been
paidbribed to do.you mean like Uncle Clarence?
To add some important context:
Seitz is suing the company, along with two others, for Audree’s death, which occurred one week after her 13th birthday.
and the mom is also suing Discord and TikTok.
Relevant yes, but isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant? Crazy young age to end your life though. Can’t imagine what that’s like.
isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant?
It’s everything – or it used to be, before the current administration (US) decided to turn two and a half centuries of law into Calvinball.
fuck roblox
Is it their stance? The article says the mother “placed parental controls” on the child’s account. This means the mother had an account too and agreed to the terms as well.
A minor literally can’t do this in the USA. You scumbags are Fucked.
I don’t believe arbitration agreements should be legal at all, but with how conservative US courts are right now, I doubt we’ll see it overturned.
Archive link https://archive.ph/lbe7N
As a panel of expert witnesses, bring in more 8-year-olds to demonstrate how to play Roblox. Add a mandatory checkbox that includes an attestation stating that the company is criminally liable and a requirement that these children must kick the entire C-suite to death.
Let’s see how binding check boxes still are, and to what degree minors are expected to process and follow their commitments.
Only in AmeriKa. What about the parents?
I saw the article on Reddit, the kid bypassed the Parent Locks, or the more likely scenario is that the ‘kid zone’ of Roblox has plenty of unhinged weirdoes thst know how to trespass into the kid zone.
The poor kid was manipulated into offing herself.
I’ll click on your stupid little agreement button to play my mindless game and I still deny all of your inane fine-print that I didn’t read anyways. If shit like this is legally binding then it’s already game over.
