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.

Isn't there some rule that minors can't sign any legally binding contracts on their own behalf?

Was it the same lawyer that argued using a free trial of Disney plus meant they couldn't sue disney for anything ever? Same ghoulish vibes

After reading this article I looked up what arbitration is in the US judiciary system and as a guy not from the USA I was quite surprised that a clause in a contract/agreement can basically strip you from your basic right to defend your rights in court. I wouldn't want to criticize an institute of another country, but let's say that was unexpected.

Another scum company.

Yikes... she took her own life? There was definitely much more going on than a video game

Their CEO wanted to put online dating in a children's game

In the US, a minor cannot enter into binding contracts without the parents co-signing, and the T&Cs argument here is almost certainly going to be rejected by a court. They are just throwing spaghetti at the wall and being corporate litigation counsel - i.e., leaving no hour unbilled.

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that no matter the age the family would still be able to sue because they didn't give up their rights

Honest question, trying to make it in good faith: would, in another scenario, an eight-year-old be able to sue someone? Lawyers are always being retained for $1 in the movies. Say a little girl (aged 8 as in the example) runs a lemonade stand and has access to a dollar. She has a grievance that can be remedied by a lawsuit. Can she go to a lawyer, get an appointment, be represented for $1 (assuming that is legal; if it's not let's set aside the matter of cost) and have the lawyer litigate on her behalf? Or would she need to involve her parents? Say they have no knowledge and the lawyer does not contact them, he just goes to court and files on behalf of the 8-year-old child. Let's say it's civil, like a property thing, but something she owns and can show she bought with her money, being infringed against. Would that even work?

Gotta play your best shot even if it's probably going to fail