Video Game Addiction Case Mostly Sent to Arbitration–Orellana v. Roblox (Catch-up Post)

[Introductory note: This case appeared in my alerts recently. It is one of the many video game addiction lawsuits percolating throughout the courts nationwide. I don’t have a census of all of those cases because they aren’t hitting my alerts.

In between the issuance of this ruling and my belated blogging of it, Roblox won a decisive dismissal in a different addiction case (Angelilli v. Activision) that casts a long shadow over the tenability of this case. I’m nonetheless blogging this ruling now because of its treatment of TOS formation for minors, an evergreen topic for the blog.]

* * *

Image created by ChatGPT. Of course ChatGPT initially depicted the arbitrator as an old white man.

The plaintiff mom alleges that her children are addicted to Fortnite and Roblox. She sued Epic (maker of Fortnite) and Roblox. She also sued Sony because the children played the games on the PS4 or PS5 and had to create a PlayStation Network account; and Apple for distributing the apps via its app store. Two of the children created the Playstation Network and Fortnite accounts. This ruling deals with Epic and Sony’s requests to arbitrate the claims.

Epic’s TOS

In 2018, when the Fortnite accounts were created, Epic’s TOS didn’t contain an arbitration clause. Epic added that in 2019 with a time-limited opt-out, which the children didn’t exercise. Without showing the initial TOS page, the court labels it a “clickwrap.” The court makes it sound like amendments were also presented as “clickwraps”: “Following an update [of the EULA terms], players who log in to Fortnite are prompted with the updated EULA on-screen and must again affirmatively select the ‘accept’ button before they can continue playing Fortnite.”

The court applies the law formalistically:

N.O. and J.O. accepted this offer by clicking accept each time the EULA was amended and by continuing to play Fortnite. There is valid consideration for the arbitration agreement because the parties mutually waived their right to suit in favor of arbitration.

The mom argued that the contract should be voidable because the children are underage. The court says that minority status is a defense to enforcement, not a condition of formation, so the arbitrator can decide what to do about their minority status.

Sony’s TOS

The court labels Sony’s TOS a clickwrap (the court doesn’t show a screen but describes the process in some detail). Sony’s TOS contained an arbitration clause throughout the relevant time period which contained an opt-out clause that wasn’t exercised. The court uses the same formalistic logic to say that the two children agreed to the TOS.

However, the third child didn’t agree to the TOS and cannot be bound to it by equitable estoppel. (The third child didn’t play Fortnite, which explains why this wasn’t an issue for the Epic TOS). This leaves the third child’s claims in court.

Additional Matters

The court says all remaining issues about arbitrability should be determined by the arbitrator: “Both delegation provisions clearly and unmistakably evince the parties’ intent to arbitrate all gateway issues because both agreements require arbitration of any dispute.” Further, all of the non-arbitrable claims, including the claims against Roblox and Apple, are stayed pending the arbitration.

Case Citation: Orellana v. Roblox Corp., 2025 WL 694428 (M.D. Fla. March 4, 2025)