Children aren't legally allowed to enter into contracts. How are their lawyers this stupid? Are they just getting their arguments from chatbots?
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
525 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3796 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
They probably have fine print that says children must have their parent's permission to sign up, and think that covers them
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)
This argument would be laughed out of the building. An 8 year old cannot enter into a contract.
So that deal I made with the devil to swap my soul for a monster truck when I was a kid isn't legally enforceable?!
Legally? No. Spiritually? Still probably no.
No no. Delivery is just late. I talked to Saber-hagan yesterday about it. They assure me it's totally bitchin'!
Contracts are two sided. If one party doesn't fulfill their side, the other doesn't either. So unless the Devil produces a monster truck, they are not entitled to your soul.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
And some, like the majority of SCOTUS judges will literally make stuff up so they can legislate from the bench as they've been ~~paid~~ bribed to do.
you mean like Uncle Clarence?
You mean Uncle Thomas?
"He's one of the good ones"
His wife's family actually said that. He's such a self-hating fella that it didn't bother him.
fuck roblox
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.
That's a vile argument. Fuck Roblox.
no. next question?
A minor literally can't do this in the USA. You scumbags are Fucked.
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.
Only in AmeriKa. What about the parents?
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.
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.
Just argue that RoBlox is a platform that makes kids trans and Gay and Roblox would be down in a week.
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.
view more: next ›