Skip to content
Dozens of federal lawsuits alleging child sexual exploitation connected to Roblox have been consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in the Northern District of California. This does not decide anyone’s case on the merits, but it changes how the litigation moves forward, and it can shape the pace, evidence, and settlement dynamics for families nationwide.
In mid-December, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized [PDF] the cases under the title In re: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3166, and assigned them to U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco. The JPML’s role is procedural: when cases across the country share common factual questions, it can move them into one court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
The JPML pointed to overlapping issues that many of the lawsuits share, including allegations that the platform’s design and safety systems failed to adequately protect minors from grooming and exploitation, and that related communications sometimes moved between Roblox and other platforms named in certain cases.
An MDL is not a class action. Each survivor or family keeps their own lawsuit, their own facts, and their own potential damages. The main difference is that the cases share one coordinated pretrial track for major issues like document discovery, deposition schedules, expert testimony, and legal motions that repeat across many cases.
If a case does not settle, it can still be sent back to the original court for trial later. Centralization is meant to reduce duplication and inconsistent rulings, especially when the same categories of evidence will matter in many cases.
In the early phase, the court typically sets leadership roles for plaintiffs’ counsel, establishes ground rules for discovery, and creates a “master” process for shared allegations. Then the focus usually shifts to building a common evidence record, including internal documents, safety related policies, moderation practices, reporting tools, and what the company knew and when.
Another common step is the selection of bellwether cases. These are a small number of representative lawsuits that move forward first to test legal theories, evidence, and jury reaction. Bellwethers can influence settlement negotiations because they clarify risk for both sides, but they do not automatically decide outcomes for everyone else.
For many families, the most emotionally difficult part of litigation is also the slowest part: getting answers. In an MDL, discovery is organized and enforced in one courtroom, which can reduce the “start over” problem that happens when dozens of separate courts demand the same information on different timelines.
Centralization can also create momentum. Instead of isolated cases inching forward, the parties face a single schedule with shared deadlines and a judge overseeing recurring disputes. That structure can sometimes speed up meaningful negotiation, especially once bellwether preparation begins.
An MDL does not guarantee a global settlement, and it does not guarantee faster individual compensation. These cases can still take time, especially if the parties fight over arbitration, platform liability theories, or the scope of discovery. Some families may feel frustrated that consolidation can also mean waiting for common issues to be resolved before individual cases move.
It also does not replace reporting to law enforcement or seeking support services. Civil litigation is about accountability and compensation, but it is not the same as a criminal investigation, and families often need multiple forms of help at once.
If you are a survivor or a parent trying to understand what is happening, the simplest way to think about the MDL is this: the lawsuits are now moving through one coordinated federal courtroom for the heavy lifting of evidence and shared legal issues. Each case still matters individually, but the biggest questions about platform practices and safeguards are more likely to be addressed on a unified track.
