Video Game Addiction Lawsuit Arbitration: Judge Denies Roblox, Epic and Microsoft Bid to Compel

A federal judge in Philadelphia has refused to send a video game addiction lawsuit to arbitration, denying a joint motion by Roblox Corp., Epic Games Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Mojang AB in a ruling reported on Monday, September 28, 2026. Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that the teenage plaintiff had repeatedly assented to the Roblox terms of use but had explicitly rejected the clause handing contract-formation questions to an arbitrator, so that clause could not be enforced and the court kept the case.

The decision matters beyond one family because the video game addiction lawsuit arbitration fight is being decided court by court. There is no federal MDL, the four defendants have said they will move to compel arbitration in every case they can, and the same judge went the other way in May. This article explains what the ruling holds, why a Delegation Clause gave way, how courts have treated minors' attempts to escape game-platform arbitration terms, and what comes next, including the Third Circuit appeal the defendants are entitled to take immediately.

What the judge ruled in the Roblox and Epic Games video game addiction arbitration case

The suit was brought by a parent on behalf of a minor who alleges that Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft, Mojang's game and now a Microsoft property, were designed to be compulsively habit-forming and that the child's resulting addiction damaged their mental health. The defendants moved together to compel individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relying on the dispute-resolution provisions in their user terms.

Judge Perez denied the motion. The published accounts, which are the only descriptions of the order available at the time of writing, record two findings that pull in opposite directions:

• Assent was established. The court found that the teen clearly agreed to the Roblox terms of use on multiple occasions. This was not a case where the platform failed to show a click, a checkbox or conspicuous notice.
• The delegation clause was not. The teen had explicitly rejected the provision delegating questions about contract formation to an arbitrator. Because that specific clause was rejected, the court treated it as unenforceable. Whether the agreement as a whole bound the minor then remained a question for the judge, not for an arbitrator.

With the delegation clause gone, the court answered the formation question itself and did not compel arbitration. The reports reviewed for this article do not print the caption or docket number, and they do not say exactly how the teen rejected the clause: a sworn disaffirmance, a pleading, a written notice to the companies, or an opt-out. Those details will matter to anyone trying to reuse the reasoning, and they are the first thing to check once the order is on the public docket.

Can Roblox force a video game addiction lawsuit into arbitration?

Sometimes, but not always, and this ruling shows where the limits are. The Roblox terms, like those of most large platforms, require U.S. users to resolve disputes through individual binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), with a Class Action Waiver, a small-claims carve-out, and a 30-day window to opt out in writing after first accepting the terms. Roblox published a restructured version of its terms effective April 30, 2026. Epic and Microsoft use similar consumer arbitration programs for Fortnite and Minecraft.

Whether those terms reach a particular child turns on three questions, taken in order:

1. Was an Arbitration Agreement formed? This depends on conspicuous notice, a clear manifestation of assent by the child or a parent, and which version of the terms applied at the time.
2. Who decides the challenges? If the terms contain a clear and unmistakable delegation clause, and the plaintiff has not specifically attacked that clause, an arbitrator decides most Gateway Questions, including enforceability and scope.
3. Can the minor undo the agreement? Under the common-law infancy doctrine, applied in Pennsylvania and nearly every other state, contracts made by minors are generally voidable. The minor can disaffirm them, usually by the age of majority or within a reasonable time afterward.

The defendants won in May because the first two steps went their way. They lost in September because the plaintiff broke the second step: the challenge was aimed at the delegation clause itself and went to formation, which courts have always kept for themselves.

What is a delegation clause, and why did it fail here?

A delegation clause is a term that assigns questions of Arbitrability to the arbitrator. These are threshold questions such as whether the agreement is valid, whether it covers the dispute, and whether it is unconscionable. The Supreme Court has enforced these clauses as written. In Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010), the Court treated a delegation provision as its own severable agreement to arbitrate. A plaintiff who wants a judge to decide arbitrability must therefore challenge the delegation provision specifically, not just the contract as a whole. In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019), the Court held that courts may not override a valid delegation even when they consider the argument for arbitration "wholly groundless."

Two limits on delegation explain the September result.

First, formation is different from validity. A delegation clause can bind a party only if that party formed an agreement containing it. The Supreme Court has long treated whether a contract was ever concluded as a question for the court, as in Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (2010). In Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (2024), the Court held that a court, not an arbitrator, decides which of two conflicting contracts governs, because that question goes to what the parties agreed to arbitrate. A delegation clause cannot decide whether it was ever agreed to.

Second, specificity. Under Rent-A-Center, a challenge directed at the delegation clause itself goes to the court. The Pennsylvania plaintiff did not rely on a general claim that the whole contract was voidable. The reported finding is that the teen explicitly rejected the delegation term. That aimed the attack at the one provision that would otherwise have sent the dispute to an arbitrator.

Other courts have used the same move. In J.R. II v. Electronic Arts Inc., a California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of EA's motion to compel. The court held that a minor's disaffirmance under California Family Code section 6710 reached both the arbitration agreement and the delegation provision within it, even though the trial court had found the delegation language "clear and unmistakable." The Northern District of California went the other way in Williams v. Moon Active Ltd. There, a minor's statement disaffirming "all contracts" with the defendant was held to be a challenge to the contract as a whole, which the delegation clause sent to the arbitrator. On the published accounts, the Pennsylvania ruling is on the J.R. II side of that line.

Can a minor get out of an arbitration agreement in a video game's terms of service?

Often, yes. A minor can generally disaffirm a contract, and a disaffirmed arbitration agreement cannot be enforced. The practical questions are who decides whether the disaffirmance worked, and whether something else binds the child anyway, such as parental assent, continued use after disaffirmance, or ratification after turning 18. Courts have divided on each point, as the scorecard below shows.

Case	Forum	Result	Deciding factor
September 2026 order (caption not yet public)	E.D. Pa., Judge Mia Roberts Perez	Motion to compel denied	Teen assented to Roblox terms but explicitly rejected the delegation clause; formation stayed with the court
Tomlin (May 20, 2026 order)	E.D. Pa., Judge Mia Roberts Perez	Stayed pending arbitration	Parent and child accepted the defendants' terms, which had broad arbitration agreements
JCCP 5363 rulings (2026)	Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Lawrence P. Riff	Split: Roblox and Microsoft claims compelled, identical Epic claims kept in court	Different evidence on whether a parent bound the minor
JCCP 5363 follow-up (2026)	Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Riff	Four of five motions tentatively granted	Roblox failed to show a parent agreed in one case
JCCP 5363, Epic reconsideration (2026)	Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Riff	Reconsideration denied	Teen's alleged addiction kept continued Fortnite play from reviving a disaffirmed agreement
J.R. II v. Electronic Arts	California Court of Appeal	Denial of motion to compel affirmed	Disaffirmance under Family Code § 6710 reached the delegation provision
Williams v. Moon Active	N.D. Cal.	Arbitrator decides	Disaffirming "all contracts" is a whole-contract challenge
Orellana v. Roblox (2025)	Federal district court	Mostly compelled (Epic granted; Sony granted in part)	Arbitrator decides whether minors lacked capacity
Garcia v. Roblox, No. 2:25-cv-03476 (Feb. 11, 2026)	C.D. Cal.	Compelled	Conspicuous notice, clear delegation in the 2025 terms, parental assent

Three patterns stand out. Parental assent is the defendants' strongest tool. Where a platform can prove a parent created or approved the account and accepted the terms, courts usually compel arbitration, as in Garcia and in the JCCP cases where the parental records held up. Specific attacks on delegation are the plaintiffs' strongest tool, as in J.R. II and now Pennsylvania. Continued play after disaffirmance is contested. Epic argued in the California coordinated proceeding that a minor who keeps playing affirms the contract. Judge Riff rejected that argument for a teen whose alleged addiction was the reason he kept playing. That ruling is specific to addiction cases and could matter a great deal in this litigation.

Why did the same judge send another video game addiction case to arbitration in May 2026?

On May 20, 2026, Judge Perez stayed a video game addiction suit brought by Rochelle Tomlin pending arbitration. Tomlin's son, now 12, began playing Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft at age 4. The court found that the parent and the child had accepted the defendants' terms of use, which contained broad arbitration agreements, and that the addiction claims fell within them.

The two rulings are consistent once the records are compared. In the May case, the court found assent by both parent and child, and on the reported facts the plaintiffs did not specifically attack the delegation clause, so the broad clauses controlled. In the September case, assent was again found, but the teen had explicitly rejected the delegation term, which returned the formation question to the court. The September reports describe a teenage plaintiff, while Tomlin's son is 12, so the rulings appear to come from separate suits. None of the reports connects them.

For practitioners, the difference between the two outcomes came down to what was in the record: a documented, targeted rejection of the delegation clause. Plaintiffs' counsel filing new cases can build that into the complaint or a declaration from the start.

Is there an MDL for video game addiction lawsuits?

No. In an order dated December 10, 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied centralization of In re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3168, which named Roblox, Epic, Microsoft and Mojang. Plaintiffs had proposed the District of Nevada or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Panel warned that the litigation "may quickly grow too large" because plaintiffs who played other games on other platforms would file new actions, and because other companies and products could be drawn in through the causation inquiry. It said informal coordination was preferable. This was the plaintiffs' second attempt: an earlier, broader petition had also been denied, and the narrower petition focused on three platforms did not change the result.

Without a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), each federal judge decides arbitration motions on their own. That is why two judges, or one judge in two cases, can reach different results. Federal cases continue to be filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Filipek v. Roblox Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-01297, filed February 27, 2026. In California, Judge Samantha P. Jessner coordinated the state cases as JCCP No. 5363 in April 2025. The proceeding now includes more than 100 actions before Judge Lawrence P. Riff in Los Angeles, and no trial date has been set. According to reporting on that proceeding, the defendants have said they intend to move to compel arbitration in every case, which makes the minors' contract questions the main pretrial issue in the litigation.

Can Roblox, Epic and Microsoft appeal the arbitration denial?

Yes, and right away. Section 16(a) of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), allows an interlocutory appeal from an order refusing to compel arbitration or refusing a stay pending arbitration. An appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania goes to the Third Circuit. In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (2023), the Supreme Court held that a district court must stay its proceedings while a non-frivolous appeal of an arbitrability denial is pending. Discovery and motion practice in the Philadelphia case would therefore stop once a notice of appeal is filed, usually for many months.

No appeal had been reported at the time of writing. The defendants have strong reasons to appeal. A Third Circuit opinion on whether a minor's targeted rejection of a delegation clause returns formation to the court would apply to every federal video game addiction case in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. It would also give the defendants a chance to correct a ruling that, from their side, weakens the delegation provisions their programs rely on. The plaintiff's side would defend the ruling on the narrow ground the reports describe: the child assented but specifically rejected the delegation term, and formation belongs to courts under Granite Rock and Suski.

A separate appellate risk has already hurt Roblox this month. On September 3, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel in Uhl v. Roblox Corporation, No. 25-5057, affirmed the denial of a Motion to Compel Arbitration in an online-safety case, holding that Roblox waived its right to arbitrate by litigating a dismissal motion for about a year first. That was a Waiver of Arbitration holding, not a minors holding. It still shows the timing discipline these companies need across their dockets.

The mass arbitration math behind the motions

Why do the defendants fight so hard to arbitrate one family's claims? Because the result in one case affects hundreds. If courts compel, the plaintiffs' bar can file individual AAA demands at scale, turning a mass tort into a Mass Arbitration in which the respondents pay most of the Filing Fee, Case Management Fee and Arbitrator Compensation for each claim. Consumer arbitration programs are built on the expectation that few claimants will file. Hundreds of coordinated addiction claims, each needing expert evidence on causation, would be expensive even without a jury.

If courts deny, the cases stay in the tort system. There, plaintiffs can seek Punitive Damages, coordinated discovery into design documents, and eventually a Bellwether Trial. The social media addiction cases show what that looks like for defendants: in JCCP 5255, the first verdict against Meta and YouTube produced $6 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages.

Neither result favors one side in every case. For defendants, a win on arbitration can lead to a flood of individual arbitrations that cost more than defending the court cases. For plaintiffs, a loss on arbitration can still create settlement pressure through fee exposure. What both sides want most is predictability, which is exactly what the split rulings have taken away.

What it means for drafters, defendants and claimants' counsel

For drafters of platform terms. The September ruling shows that a delegation clause is only as strong as the proof of formation behind it. Useful steps include documenting parental assent at account creation and on every material update, keeping version-by-version records of which terms each account accepted, and asking users who turn 18 to reaffirm the terms, which gives the company a record of ratification. A separate, prominent acceptance step for the delegation and arbitration terms may help show specific assent. Drafters should also expect that a minor's rejection of that one clause can be enough to put the formation question back in court.

For defendants. Move early, since Uhl shows the cost of waiting. Build each motion on the parental-assent record, because that is what has succeeded in Garcia and in most of the JCCP motions. Treat a denial as a decision about whether to appeal under § 16(a) and obtain the Bielski stay. Keep in mind that a Third Circuit loss would carry far more weight than a single district court order.

For claimants' counsel. The record matters more than the argument. Disaffirmance should be express, specific to the arbitration and delegation provisions, and documented in a sworn declaration or pleading early in the case. General statements disaffirming "all contracts" risk the Williams v. Moon Active result. Where a child kept playing, the Riff reconsideration ruling suggests the addiction allegations themselves can answer a ratification-by-conduct argument. Counsel should also gather evidence on whether and how a parent accepted the terms, because that is where the defendants' strongest cases are.

For funders and firms pricing the docket. With no MDL and conflicting rulings, the value of a video game addiction case now depends on the forum and on the record of assent. A portfolio in which parents accepted the terms is worth less in court and exposes defendants to more arbitration fees. A portfolio with clean minor-only accounts and documented disaffirmance is more likely to stay in court.

FAQ

What did the judge rule in the Roblox and Epic Games video game addiction arbitration case?

Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Roblox, Epic Games, Microsoft and Mojang's motion to compel arbitration in a ruling reported September 28, 2026. She found that the teen had assented to the Roblox terms but had explicitly rejected the delegation clause, so the court, not an arbitrator, decided formation.

Can a minor get out of an arbitration agreement in a video game's terms of service?

Generally yes. Minors' contracts are voidable under the infancy doctrine, but whether a court or an arbitrator decides the disaffirmance depends on whether the minor specifically challenged the delegation clause. Parental assent to the terms can still bind the child.

Why did the same judge send a video game addiction case to arbitration in May 2026?

In the May 20, 2026 Tomlin order, the court found that the parent and child had accepted terms with broad arbitration agreements, and the record did not show the targeted rejection of the delegation clause that decided the September case.

Is there an MDL for video game addiction lawsuits?

No. The JPML denied MDL No. 3168 on December 10, 2025, saying informal coordination was better. More than 100 California cases are coordinated in JCCP No. 5363 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Can Roblox, Epic and Microsoft appeal the arbitration denial?

Yes. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) allows an immediate appeal to the Third Circuit, and under Coinbase v. Bielski the district court case is stayed while the appeal is pending.

What does the ruling mean for other video game addiction lawsuits?

It gives plaintiffs a model for keeping minors' claims in court: a specific, documented rejection of the delegation clause. It does not bind other judges, and parental-assent cases remain likely to be compelled.