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.

  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    7 days ago

    Children aren’t legally allowed to enter into contracts. How are their lawyers this stupid? Are they just getting their arguments from chatbots?

    • Etterra@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 days ago

      They aren’t stupid - they’re stalling, dragging the trial out in an effort to coax the plaintiff into a settlement or running out of money so they’ll have no choice but to drop the suit. It’s standard issue corporate evil.

      • bluesheep@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Also exhaust them mentally. You can only get reminded of the court case about your 8 yo child’s death so many times before you break

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      They probably have fine print that says children must have their parent’s permission to sign up, and think that covers them

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Likely a mix of all 3 things. (Both stupid lawyers using chatbots and a special extra helping of techbro leadership that is hellbent on “challenging the paradigm” or some other shit)

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Well not shocking as this is the same company that is cool with child gambling, child “dating” and well a lot of terrible child things.

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

  • fartographer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • tigermountain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Companies like this spend a lot of money on lawyers writing up ‘terms and conditions’ for the sole reason of shielding them from legal liability and the ability to put those protections in place just from the user selecting a checkbox. But my fear is that this case will just be another example used in the argument for age verification, and identification, online.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    193
    ·
    8 days ago

    Minors can’t waive rights. Or, in theory they can’t waive rights because they don’t have capacity. That’s my understanding

    • Dagnet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      7 days ago

      In my country nobody can waive rights, by default no contract is able to take any rights from you

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 days ago

        It used to be like that in the US. It was not until the 90s into the 00’s that employers were allowed to make employees sign away their right to sue and instead use binding arbitration of the employer’s choosing, or manufacturers and retailers forcing consumers to waive their rights to sue in purchasing the product, and so forth.

        Judges used to throw them out. And if a contract had egregious language, it could invalidate the entire contract not just the part that is illegal.

        Since the federalist society conquered the courts all of that changed.

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          Thank you for pointing out how much damage they have done to our legal system and in turn our society, or what remains of it.

          Not sure how this gets fixed without some kind of major probably terrible event. Fixing the Supreme Court is probably the first step, but kicking them out in local elections is crucial too.

    • bigmclargehuge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’m splitting hairs a lil bit - you’re pretty much correct. Minors are not citizens, so they don’t have rights. Minors are wards of the State. They under State protection, and as such don’t have the ability to forgo that protection, until they turn 18.

      • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 days ago

        This is all wrong.

        As long as the minor has US citizenship (through naturalization, parents, ect) they have citizenship. We can see this with ICE deporting non US citizen minors (there might be a rare exceptiom, but those are outliers).

        Minors have constitutional rights as they have been ruled by the US supreme court to protest politically in schools (as long as it doesn’t interfer with school operation or other students). They even have the ability for the second amendment as long as they are provided permission from the parent and is under adult supervision (hunting, target practice, compitition). Also still protected against unconstitutional searches or seizures.

        Minors are not wards of the state unless they are sentenced to a correctional facility, some kind of state mental hospital, or orphinege. Children are under control of their parents unless some substantial reason (parent or guardian death, judification, extreme mental health).

        As the other poster stated, children have protections such ad labor laws, protections against military service, protections against adult criminal trials (unless ruled by a judge).

        (some of this will vary state by state, but most is the same)

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 days ago

        Minors (except immigrants who have not been naturalized) are citzens, and they do have rights. For example, minors can be issued passports, and cannot lawfully be deported. That’s because they’re citizens.

        Also, you can’t just walk down the street and kill a minor. That’s an example of a right that everyone has, regardless of whether they’re citizens. Generally, the Constitution refers to such people as persons rather than citizens.

        The vast majority of minors are not wards of the state, the only exception being those who are declared wards of the state through explicit legal procedures.

        So nothing you said was correct.

        The real rationale for Roblox being full of shit is that minors cannot execute contracts. And there are what are called unconscionable contracts, which are invalid even if the signatory is not a minor.

      • ranzispa@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        Is that so? It would be a bit strange for me that children have no rights. What would prevent child labor or protect them from abusive parents otherwise?

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          7 days ago

          It would be a bit strange for me that children have no rights.

          That’s because it’s not true.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    any mention of “waiving your rights” should always automatically be null, no matter who it concerns. by definition it places the corporation above the law. Might as well let corporations authorize people to kill, steal and do other crimes if that is allowed.

    we need global capital punishment for corporations

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      You can’t sign any rights away in the EU.

      It’s great because I know my rights here and I can just accept any terms knowing they can’t fuck me over no matter what I accept.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 days ago

        Do you have any concrete examples of this being enforced in practice?

        All I see:

        • our data still gets collected
        • our phones, TVs, wiretap “assistants” still spy on us and upload all of our information to personal datasets that companies can access
        • “deleting your data” as per GDPR is just a database flag/row that says the data says it is deleted
        • EU just authorized any and all companies to spy on your communications 24/7, 365 days a year
        • freedom of speech/expression doesn’t exist here any more than in America, maybe less

        Our right to privacy (freedom right pillar) is literally daily being violeted 1000 times over and the most I have ever seen happen is a slap on the wrist 0.01% of yearly revenue fine that didn’t change anything. Companies can fuck you over all they like unless you have a 10million € army of lawyers…

        Also how is it going in Germany with the Palestine protester that had been locked in solitary confinement (known torture) for 23 hours per day for the past almost year after a show trial kangaroo court where they wouldn’t allow even any independent record of the trial inside (violation of both dignity and justice pillars)

        There is precious little enforcement of many rights, so we absolutely cannot take them for granted and have to fight for them on every front.

      • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Sorry, not true (I wish it were). Even in the EU there are few rights that cannot be taken away or waived.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not a lawyer, but if i hire someone to kill someone and put that in writing, I can’t sue that person for not doing his job because the contract has no legal value. Not sure on the details, but if i understand correctly a contract between two people cannot cover things that are outside the law. Meaning the law of contracts (like TOS) is inferior to the law of killing people. Seems like this is not true for America, but here i’ve heard of consumers winning lawsuits based on this principle.

      We do need global punishment for corporations, but it would not be the only solution: corporation have to abide to local laws.

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        if they cant be punished globally, they cant be made to obey local laws. Kind of like if you could do crimes in one country and just leave after heat gets too bad. For us, interpol will go after you.

        • huppakee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          For individuals it is a lot easier to go to another country to evade punishment. If a company does that they also can’t produce or sell there themselves and will have to find another company to act as an intermediary. Also, in this case it is about a dragging someone to court. It is hard to take a us software company to court, but it does happen. For example, a Dutch organisation took Meta to court for not allowing users to receive a feed with only the accounts they follow. They won that case. A celeb had his identity used by fraudsters who used Google Ads to trick people into buying certain crypto, he won the case. Yes companies get away with a lot, but they are ‘made to obey local laws’ from time to time.

          • reksas@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            they dont get fines that matter though, otherwise they wouldnt act like they are just cost of doing business. fine for breaking law for big corporation should be big they are actually scared of getting fined.

            And company being able to to evade punishment via intermediary is not right either. breaking the law should mean they get left behind by competitors

  • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • Instigate@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      In Australia, when a minor signs a contract, it’s only legally binding on the other (adult) party. That is, if I were 14 and signed a contract I can force the other party to meet their obligations under the contract but I cannot be forced to meet my own obligations. The contract favours the minor in that way so that they are protected from anything predatory while still able to engage in and benefit from contracts. I think that’s the best approach.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Some teens get emancipated when they are 17 or maybe even younger, if their parents suck and they can show a court they are able to care for themselves, depending on state I presume.

      I imagine that is an exception to minors signing contracts, maybe they are no longer considered minors after they do that though.

    • [deleted]@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Marriage is a contract.

      I think it should be limited to 18+ but it isn’t currently in most places.

      • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not an exception. Minors cannot get married if they’re under 18 in any state unless they get their parent’s (or a court’s) written approval. A minor cannot enter into a marriage contract by themselves.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        No, you’re absolutely right. There are no exceptions. In the US there are roughly six elements necessary for a contract to be legally binding, and this one is the issue of “legal capacity”: does the party entering into the contract have the capacity to understand and be bound to such an agreement? For minors, the broad answer in law is always no. They can get emancipated (a judge rules you an adult for legal purposes), they can have a parent or legal guardian act in their behalf, they can postpone until they are of age, etc. But they do not, as a rule, have the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract.

        That’s what this is. Minors appear to enter into contracts all the time. Every time a minor clicks on a EULA they’re purporting to enter into a contract. But that does not make it valid. Just because a signature is on a line that is not enough to make a contract binding and enforceable.

        The defendants are pulling this because in the US we’ve entered into a new wtf era in the courts and they’re simply hoping to get a judge to allow it to stick, but this whole “an eight year old successfully waived his rights” argument has no basis in law.

        To put it another way I’m going to pivot and use a different example that more people are familiar with, and one that I care a lot about: underage marriage. Apologies in advance for the shoehorn but it illustrates the point.

        This exact issue of being unable to legally enter into agreement, or provide legal consent, is why underage marriage is so problematic: it’s a legal trap for the minor, and essentially a form of legal slavery. Children can get married, but children have no legal power to initiate a legal proceeding (like getting a restraining order or filing for divorce) nor direct their own health care, even reproductive health, unless they act through a parent or legal guardian. If they are mistreated they can’t even be admitted to a shelter, since shelters have agreements and children cannot enter into contracts, period end of.

        Legally, just because a child has married, they do NOT suddenly gain legal emancipation. This is another big misunderstanding. Emancipation happens solely by court order, not by marriage. Even the marriage itself required parental consent to be legally binding, depending on the exact age and location. The married minor is still legally a child, unable to execute or be bound to contracts. The exceptions to this are informal, such as when despite a child’s minority, others allow a child to go through the motions and honor an invalid contract anyway, OR formal, when the child has a legal guardian that is willing to enter into contract and genuinely act on the child’s own behalf.

        And the worst of it is that in most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist. That’s how few legal rights children have in reality.

        There are organizations working hard to turn this around, but it’s an uphill battle. Here’s more information for anyone who wants the actual legal picture: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/