Technology

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

That's a vile argument. Fuck Roblox.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

"Waiving of rights" should be automatically null and void if it happens only as part of some TOS (or GTC or similar situations).

Roblox really seems to be the end boss of evil game companies. The competition is certainly steep but they never cease to amaze me with how low they‘re willing to go for a few bucks more.

I'm confused, even if the girl could waive her rights and that is legally a valid argument - she is not the one who's excersizing her right to sue the company right? Does that right extend beyond death or would such a contract also extend to others who have not signed anything?

Also what the fuck, their stance is they can't be sued, instead of they're not guilty. I mean i'm not guilty and the parents can't sue me, but if they wanted to my defense would surely be that i had nothing to do with it - not that they can't sue me.

This argument would be laughed out of the building. An 8 year old cannot enter into a contract.

By being born you accept being bound by the following terms and conditions....

To add some important context:

Seitz is suing the company, along with two others, for Audree's death, which occurred one week after her 13th birthday.

and the mom is also suing Discord and TikTok.

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.

Regardless of the age of someone entering into a contract (by clicking a checkbox)

Aren’t there certain rights you can’t waive, regardless of age?

Is it their stance? The article says the mother “placed parental controls” on the child’s account. This means the mother had an account too and agreed to the terms as well.