Can You Refuse Arbitration in a Video Game Addiction Lawsuit?

Yes, but only in narrow circumstances. A minor can refuse arbitration by showing that no parent ever agreed to the platform's arbitration clause, or by arguing the minor lacked legal capacity to be bound by one at all. Courts across the country are actively splitting on this exact question in video-game addiction lawsuits, and the outcome usually turns on one fact: who actually clicked "I agree" to the terms containing the arbitration clause. The Daily Journal reports that cases are resolved differently depending on whether the platform can prove a parent, rather than just the child, accepted those terms.

Table of Contents

• Why Arbitration Keeps Coming Up in These Cases
• When Courts Have Refused to Compel Arbitration
• The Two Main Strategies for Refusing Arbitration
• Proof of Parental Consent Is the Real Battleground
• A Separate Way to Defeat Arbitration — Waiver
• Frequently Asked Questions

Why Arbitration Keeps Coming Up in These Cases

Arbitration is a private dispute process, conducted outside court before a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, and it's typically faster, confidential, and harder to appeal. Game companies like Epic Games, Roblox, and Microsoft include arbitration clauses in their terms of use, and when a family sues over a child's alleged gaming addiction, the company's first move is often a motion to compel arbitration — asking the court to send the dispute to that private process instead of letting it proceed as a lawsuit.

That motion doesn't always succeed. A Pennsylvania federal judge ordered addiction claims against Epic Games, Roblox, and Microsoft into arbitration after finding the parent and child had accepted each company's terms containing broad arbitration agreements, according to HarrisMartin. But in a large batch of California state-court cases, the result was mixed.

When Courts Have Refused to Compel Arbitration

In roughly 40 consolidated addiction cases before Judge Lawrence Riff in Los Angeles, the judge tentatively granted four of five motions to compel arbitration on August 4, 2026 — but refused the fifth because Roblox could not establish that a parent had actually agreed to its arbitration terms, according to The Daily Journal. The missing piece wasn't whether an arbitration clause existed; it was proof that a parent, not just the child, had agreed to it. Judge Riff went further in a separate ruling involving Epic Games. He refused to compel arbitration in a minor's Fortnite claims, and when Epic asked for reconsideration — arguing the child's continued play after trying to disaffirm the user agreement revived the arbitration clause — he rejected that too, finding no case law supported the theory, as The Daily Journal reported.

This shows judges won't assume consent just because a minor kept playing the game. The timing of when a clause was added also matters. In Orellana v. Roblox Corp., the court granted Epic's motion to compel but only partly granted Sony's, because Epic's Fortnite terms had no arbitration clause in 2018 when the accounts were created — the clause was added in 2019 with a time-limited opt-out the children never exercised, according to Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

The Two Main Strategies for Refusing Arbitration

Plaintiffs challenging arbitration in these cases generally rely on one of two arguments: By contrast, courts applying Ninth Circuit precedent have upheld arbitration where parents demonstrably created the account. In Garcia v. Roblox, decided in February 2026 in the Central District of California, the court held the minor's claims were bound to arbitration because the parents had agreed to Roblox's terms when setting up the family account, per a Vedder Price client alert.

• **No valid agreement exists.** This is the strongest and most successful approach so far. It requires showing the platform can't prove a parent (not just the child) clicked through terms containing the arbitration clause, or that the clause postdates account creation without proper notice.
• **The minor lacked capacity to contract.** Plaintiffs in Turner v. Epic Games & Roblox, filed April 8, 2026 in the Northern District of California, are preemptively disaffirming any arbitration agreement on the theory that a minor cannot validly agree to arbitrate in the first place, according to a Crowell & Moring client alert. No court has ruled on this theory yet.

Proof of Parental Consent Is the Real Battleground

The recurring issue across nearly every ruling is evidence, not law. Courts agree arbitration clauses can bind minors if a parent agreed to them — the fight is over whether the platform can actually prove that happened. This is playing out on appeal in Uhl v.

Roblox, pending before the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs' appellate brief argues Roblox cannot show any arbitration agreement exists because it never proved a parent, rather than the child alone, made the account signup or in-game purchase that triggered the terms, according to the Gupta Wessler appellee brief. If the appeals court agrees, platforms will need stronger proof of parental involvement — not just a checkbox a child could have clicked — before arbitration can be enforced.

A Separate Way to Defeat Arbitration — Waiver

Even where a valid arbitration agreement clearly exists, a company can lose its right to use it by waiting too long to invoke it. A divided Ninth Circuit panel, in an unpublished September 2026 ruling, affirmed denial of Roblox's motion to compel arbitration in a separate proposed class action because Roblox had litigated the merits in district court for nearly a year before invoking the arbitration clause, according to a California Courts Newsroom summary. That means a plaintiff facing a late-filed motion to compel can argue waiver as a separate, independent basis for staying in court — regardless of whether the underlying arbitration clause is otherwise valid.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does it matter if the child clicked "I agree" to the terms themselves?

Courts have treated a child's own click as insufficient proof of consent in several rulings — platforms need evidence a parent agreed, as seen in the Roblox ruling before Judge Riff and the pending Uhl v. Roblox appeal.

Can a company force arbitration even after litigating the case for months?

Not necessarily. The Ninth Circuit found Roblox waived its arbitration right in one case by litigating the merits for nearly a year before invoking the clause.

Does updating terms of use after an account is created automatically bind existing users to arbitration?

Not without proper notice and opt-out. In Orellana v. Roblox Corp., Epic's 2019 arbitration clause only partially applied because it came with a time-limited opt-out the children never used.

You Might Also Like

• Section 230 and Social Media Addiction Liability: Why the Alleged Conduct Matters
• Roblox Child Sexual Abuse Lawsuit: Who Can File a Claim?
• How to Read the Public Docket for a Social Media Addiction Lawsuit

Browse more: Active MDL Cases | Arbitration | Attorneys | Claims | Comparisons