Skip to content 
Photo: Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles, entrance of the Los Angeles Superior Court, by jjron. Own work, GFDL 1.2, via Wikimedia Commons.
Los Angeles County’s child sexual exploitation lawsuit against Roblox can move forward after a judge rejected the company’s attempt to have the case dismissed, Reuters’ Diana Novak Jones reports.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dean Kitchens ruled Sept. 23 that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not shield Roblox from claims focused on how the company verifies users’ ages.
The county alleges that Roblox has failed to adequately distinguish children from adults on its platform, allowing young users to interact with potential predators with insufficient safeguards.
The ruling represents another setback for Roblox as the company faces government lawsuits and more than 180 individual cases involving allegations that children were sexually exploited after using the platform.
Judge Rejects Roblox’s Section 230 Defense
Section 230 generally protects online platforms from being held legally responsible for content posted by their users.
But the judge found that Los Angeles County’s age-verification allegations target Roblox’s own product and safety decisions, rather than material created by third parties.
This ruling implies the county is not simply arguing that Roblox should be liable because a user posted or sent harmful content. Instead, it alleges that Roblox failed to implement adequate systems for determining whether users are children or adults and protecting minors accordingly.
Kitchens also rejected Roblox’s argument that its age-verification practices are protected by the First Amendment.
Los Angeles County Alleges Roblox Created a Public Nuisance
Los Angeles County filed its lawsuit in February 2026, accusing Roblox of contributing to child sexual exploitation and misleading families about the safety of its platform.
The county also brought a public nuisance claim, a type of legal action increasingly used by governments to challenge products or corporate practices alleged to threaten public health or safety.
If successful, public nuisance claims can potentially lead to financial penalties as well as court orders requiring a company to change its practices.
Arkansas has filed a similar lawsuit naming both Roblox and Discord.
Families may have legal options when online platforms fail to adequately protect children from predators.
Learn more about the allegations, current litigation and potential claims in our Roblox Exploitation Lawsuit Guide.
Roblox Has Expanded Child Safety Measures
Roblox has announced several safety changes this year as scrutiny of the platform has increased.
Those measures include facial age estimation for certain chat features, more restrictive age-based accounts and expanded parental controls.
The company maintains that it works aggressively to protect children and has argued in litigation that it should not be held responsible for criminal acts committed by third-party users.
But lawsuits against Roblox increasingly focus on a different question: whether the platform itself was designed and operated with sufficient safeguards for a user base that includes millions of children.
More Than 180 Individual Lawsuits Are Also Pending
Beyond the government cases, Roblox and Discord face more than 180 lawsuits from survivors and parents who allege children were sexually abused or exploited after meeting adults through online gaming and chat platforms.
Many of the lawsuits allege that interactions began on Roblox and later moved to Discord or other communication platforms.
Roblox and Discord are now seeking to move some of those cases out of court and into private arbitration, arguing that users agreed to arbitration provisions when accepting the platforms’ terms of service.
Plaintiffs are opposing those efforts.
The Los Angeles County ruling does not resolve the broader individual litigation, but it could become significant because the judge allowed claims based on Roblox’s own safety and age-verification systems to proceed despite the company’s Section 230 defense.
