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.

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

I’m splitting hairs a lil bit - you’re pretty much correct. Minors are not citizens, so they don’t have rights. Minors are wards of the State. They under State protection, and as such don’t have the ability to forgo that protection, until they turn 18.

Is that so? It would be a bit strange for me that children have no rights. What would prevent child labor or protect them from abusive parents otherwise?

It would be a bit strange for me that children have no rights.

That’s because it’s not true.

Minors (except immigrants who have not been naturalized) are citzens, and they do have rights. For example, minors can be issued passports, and cannot lawfully be deported. That’s because they’re citizens.

Also, you can’t just walk down the street and kill a minor. That’s an example of a right that everyone has, regardless of whether they’re citizens. Generally, the Constitution refers to such people as persons rather than citizens.

The vast majority of minors are not wards of the state, the only exception being those who are declared wards of the state through explicit legal procedures.

So nothing you said was correct.

The real rationale for Roblox being full of shit is that minors cannot execute contracts. And there are what are called unconscionable contracts, which are invalid even if the signatory is not a minor.

This is all wrong.

As long as the minor has US citizenship (through naturalization, parents, ect) they have citizenship. We can see this with ICE deporting non US citizen minors (there might be a rare exceptiom, but those are outliers).

Minors have constitutional rights as they have been ruled by the US supreme court to protest politically in schools (as long as it doesn’t interfer with school operation or other students). They even have the ability for the second amendment as long as they are provided permission from the parent and is under adult supervision (hunting, target practice, compitition). Also still protected against unconstitutional searches or seizures.

Minors are not wards of the state unless they are sentenced to a correctional facility, some kind of state mental hospital, or orphinege. Children are under control of their parents unless some substantial reason (parent or guardian death, judification, extreme mental health).

As the other poster stated, children have protections such ad labor laws, protections against military service, protections against adult criminal trials (unless ruled by a judge).

(some of this will vary state by state, but most is the same)

Not a single thing you said is correct.

That’s what common sense would dictate

In my country nobody can waive rights, by default no contract is able to take any rights from you

You know, like a reasonable place would. Not this “rights are inaliable!” Unless you do x, y, or z.

It used to be like that in the US. It was not until the 90s into the 00’s that employers were allowed to make employees sign away their right to sue and instead use binding arbitration of the employer’s choosing, or manufacturers and retailers forcing consumers to waive their rights to sue in purchasing the product, and so forth.

Judges used to throw them out. And if a contract had egregious language, it could invalidate the entire contract not just the part that is illegal.

Since the federalist society conquered the courts all of that changed.

Thank you for pointing out how much damage they have done to our legal system and in turn our society, or what remains of it.

Not sure how this gets fixed without some kind of major probably terrible event. Fixing the Supreme Court is probably the first step, but kicking them out in local elections is crucial too.

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.

TOS can’t protect a company from legal requirements, and I’m not clear on what the legal requirements are in terms of safeguarding and content moderation but my initial hunch is that they’re very lackluster. I hope that the suit will bring attention to this issue with legislative bodies, but I suspect that’s the most that can be realistically hoped for.

That’s fine. All I’m saying is that the article claims that their stance is an eight year old can waive rights, while also claiming indirectly that the mother waived the rights too. Because it says that she placed parental controls on the account, which in the case of Roblox means she made an account for herself and agreed to the same terms.

I have no idea whether the terms are enforceable or not. I’m only commenting on the article sensationalizing by making it look like the company says the 8 year old agreeing to their terms is enough.

Although maybe one thing to add could be that the child could not have gotten access to chat either without the mother enabling it for her. The article makes it sound like children are immediately exposed to all sorts of things on Roblox but the reality is unverified accounts are heavily restricted, and for a child, the restrictions have to be disabled by a parent.

Your points are well taken, but usually when responding to a lawsuit – especially a big dollar suit against a deep-pocketed corporation with an army of attorneys – the defending legal team will pile on every exonerating thing it can possibly think of, and continue to do so throughout the proceedings, because every single one is not just a chance to win but a chance to argue on appeal if they lose.

So they will throw in whatever they can think of, because something somewhere might stick, and meanwhile everything they tack on is something else the plaintiffs have to address in their own filings, adding to the plaintiff’s upfront cost of bringing the suit.

Minors cannot be signatories to a contract. Nothing the parent does can change that.

If someone agrees to unlawful contract terms, those terms have no legal force, and depending on the wording of the contract, it could potentially invalidate the whole contract (though there’s usually fine print about separability that deals with that eventuality).

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.

Relevant yes, but isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant? Crazy young age to end your life though. Can’t imagine what that’s like.

isn’t the age at which she signed the ‘contract’ even more relevant?

It’s everything – or it used to be, before the current administration (US) decided to turn two and a half centuries of law into Calvinball.

Some teens get emancipated when they are 17 or maybe even younger, if their parents suck and they can show a court they are able to care for themselves, depending on state I presume.

I imagine that is an exception to minors signing contracts, maybe they are no longer considered minors after they do that though.

Marriage is a contract.

I think it should be limited to 18+ but it isn’t currently in most places.

Not an exception. Minors cannot get married if they’re under 18 in any state unless they get their parent’s (or a court’s) written approval. A minor cannot enter into a marriage contract by themselves.

They are entering into a contract with extra steps.

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.

No, you’re absolutely right. There are no exceptions. In the US there are roughly six elements necessary for a contract to be legally binding, and this one is the issue of “legal capacity”: does the party entering into the contract have the capacity to understand and be bound to such an agreement? For minors, the broad answer in law is always no. They can get emancipated (a judge rules you an adult for legal purposes), they can have a parent or legal guardian act in their behalf, they can postpone until they are of age, etc. But they do not, as a rule, have the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract.

That’s what this is. Minors appear to enter into contracts all the time. Every time a minor clicks on a EULA they’re purporting to enter into a contract. But that does not make it valid. Just because a signature is on a line that is not enough to make a contract binding and enforceable.

The defendants are pulling this because in the US we’ve entered into a new wtf era in the courts and they’re simply hoping to get a judge to allow it to stick, but this whole “an eight year old successfully waived his rights” argument has no basis in law.

To put it another way I’m going to pivot and use a different example that more people are familiar with, and one that I care a lot about: underage marriage. Apologies in advance for the shoehorn but it illustrates the point.

This exact issue of being unable to legally enter into agreement, or provide legal consent, is why underage marriage is so problematic: it’s a legal trap for the minor, and essentially a form of legal slavery. Children can get married, but children have no legal power to initiate a legal proceeding (like getting a restraining order or filing for divorce) nor direct their own health care, even reproductive health, unless they act through a parent or legal guardian. If they are mistreated they can’t even be admitted to a shelter, since shelters have agreements and children cannot enter into contracts, period end of.

Legally, just because a child has married, they do NOT suddenly gain legal emancipation. This is another big misunderstanding. Emancipation happens solely by court order, not by marriage. Even the marriage itself required parental consent to be legally binding, depending on the exact age and location. The married minor is still legally a child, unable to execute or be bound to contracts. The exceptions to this are informal, such as when despite a child’s minority, others allow a child to go through the motions and honor an invalid contract anyway, OR formal, when the child has a legal guardian that is willing to enter into contract and genuinely act on the child’s own behalf.

And the worst of it is that in most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist. That’s how few legal rights children have in reality.

There are organizations working hard to turn this around, but it’s an uphill battle. Here’s more information for anyone who wants the actual legal picture: unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/

Thanks for that great write-up and link!

Apologies for not replying to you directly – I meant to, lol. But thank you.

In Australia, when a minor signs a contract, it’s only legally binding on the other (adult) party. That is, if I were 14 and signed a contract I can force the other party to meet their obligations under the contract but I cannot be forced to meet my own obligations. The contract favours the minor in that way so that they are protected from anything predatory while still able to engage in and benefit from contracts. I think that’s the best approach.

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.

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

You can’t sign any rights away in the EU.

It’s great because I know my rights here and I can just accept any terms knowing they can’t fuck me over no matter what I accept.

Do you have any concrete examples of this being enforced in practice?

All I see:

• our data still gets collected
• our phones, TVs, wiretap “assistants” still spy on us and upload all of our information to personal datasets that companies can access
• "deleting your data" as per GDPR is just a database flag/row that says the data says it is deleted
• EU just authorized any and all companies to spy on your communications
• freedom of speech/expression doesn’t exist here any more than in America, maybe less

Our right to privacy (freedom right pillar) is literally daily being violeted 1000 times over and the most I have ever seen happen is a slap on the wrist 0.01% of yearly revenue fine that didn’t change anything. Companies can fuck you over all they like unless you have a 10million € army of lawyers…

Also how is it going in Germany with the Palestine protester that had been locked in solitary confinement (known torture) for 23 hours per day for the past almost year after a show trial kangaroo court where they wouldn’t allow even any independent record of the trial inside (violation of both dignity and justice pillars)

There is precious little enforcement of many rights, so we absolutely cannot take them for granted and have to fight for them on every front.

Sorry, not true (I wish it were). Even in the EU there are few rights that cannot be taken away or waived.

Not a lawyer, but if i hire someone to kill someone and put that in writing, I can’t sue that person for not doing his job because the contract has no legal value. Not sure on the details, but if i understand correctly a contract between two people cannot cover things that are outside the law. Meaning the law of contracts (like TOS) is inferior to the law of killing people. Seems like this is not true for America, but here i’ve heard of consumers winning lawsuits based on this principle.

We do need global punishment for corporations, but it would not be the only solution: corporation have to abide to local laws.

if they cant be punished globally, they cant be made to obey local laws. Kind of like if you could do crimes in one country and just leave after heat gets too bad. For us, interpol will go after you.

For individuals it is a lot easier to go to another country to evade punishment. If a company does that they also can’t produce or sell there themselves and will have to find another company to act as an intermediary. Also, in this case it is about a dragging someone to court. It is hard to take a us software company to court, but it does happen. For example, a Dutch organisation took Meta to court for not allowing users to receive a feed with only the accounts they follow. They won that case. A celeb had his identity used by fraudsters who used Google Ads to trick people into buying certain crypto, he won the case. Yes companies get away with a lot, but they are ‘made to obey local laws’ from time to time.

they dont get fines that matter though, otherwise they wouldnt act like they are just cost of doing business. fine for breaking law for big corporation should be big they are actually scared of getting fined.

And company being able to to evade punishment via intermediary is not right either. breaking the law should mean they get left behind by competitors

100% agree

If it can be waived, then it’s a temporary privilege, not a right

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?

I think it depends on the country, since all rights themself are granted by the law of a country. That’s why there is a global definition of what human right, but not every human gets to exercise that right.

There are in the US. However what those rights are is something courts agree we all have, but generally hate to state.

minors can enter into contracts?

Sounds like she was groomed by 764/o9a types. Typical modus operandi.

IMO they’re nothing short of a continuation and expansion of the original MKUltra. This time to horrify the public into passing mandatory online ID laws which would be very useful for the agency. That and they create a pre-selected group of amoral sadist monsters the agency can use for various purposes after making contact.

They’re aided by these profit hungry tech corps. Though it’s astonishing and a serious tech literacy problem that the mother let her have a discord account when those are not moderated and not for kids. These tech companies should all go bankrupt but they’ll all have us scanning IDs for everything soon enough instead. Problem is these o9a types have lots of groomers who are underage teens themselves so such measures don’t really put a stop to it.

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted; this is far from being a fringe idea. Rather, it is well established and being studied. (Look at the About pages for an idea of who is behind research such as this.) To extrapolate that it is being done for political gain is no far leap, lol.

Roblox is a known nexus for this kind of activity (pick one, lol) and why wouldn’t it be? It’s one of the places where all the children are there and unsupervised.

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

There needs to be strict scrutiny applied by courts to TOS. And other similar legal terms (ask a lawyer what they are, not me) which all say basically only the obvious things that shouldn't need to be stated at all can be put in them.

If you need more than the basic protection the law already provides for you, then you don't use a TOS, you need a real contract signed by both parties, with both parties having a lawyer on hand to ensure the terms are understood and really agreeable.

There should be standard TOS clauses that are approved based on their legality and enforceability that click or use based “contracts” should be limited to. Or at the very least, they should need to be legally ratified rather than only looked at closely if legally challenged.

Like that whole “you waived our liability for real world shit by using Disney+” should have resulted in the disbarment of any lawyers that wrote, approved, and tried to argue it in court when it came up and punitive damages to Disney for even trying.

I’m still pissed off about that. The guy’s wife fucking died and they pulled that shit.

But this was not in court: Disney was trying to force the surviving husband into arbitration and simply withdrew the objection to trial after it got a lot of bad publicity, so it was never heard in front of a judge. Disney never actually said it did not have absolute right to arbitration, it just withdrew the objection, meaning that they could do it again at any time.

And the whole “try but back down if it isn’t going so well” strategy is the worst part of it all because it helps them without even if a judge would laugh them out of court over it because of the set of people that would back down or be happy with a lesser settlement, which is probably larger than the set of people that would fight it anyways, plus there’s the subset of people that would want to fight anyways but don’t have the resources to do so.

That’s why I hate the whole system of “treat it as if it is all good until someone (who was specifically harmed by this) takes it to court”. And that’s even before getting to the part where the decision in the end rests in the hands of a single or maybe a small group of judges.

I’ll click on your stupid little agreement button to play my mindless game and I still deny all of your inane fine-print that I didn’t read anyways. If shit like this is legally binding then it’s already game over.

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.

The fast talking lawyers were hoping no one would notice what you just pointed out.

Actually they can sue you. Anyone can sue anyone else over anything. It’s whether the lawsuit or not has any merits and will be carried on is what decides that. If you have a lot of money and want to fuck over a poor person sue them for nothing. The poors still have to spend all their money defending themselves against nothing or else they’re in contempt of court and you get the satisfaction of destroying them financially forever. No crime, but the poors still get punished.

Over here:

A) you have a legal right to legal representation, there is a social justice system where lawyers work for a set price.
B) if you bring something to court, you have to pay a few, also if the case gets dismissed.
C) Not bringing a lawyer does not automatically mean someone is in contempt of court.

And i believe there is some law here where you got be charged for a crime if you harras people, i think this would be triggered after your third or fourth frivolous suit.

Poor people are fucked over all the time, but over here not because they’re sued by someone with money for no reason.

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

There’s only one condition, providing you were actually lucky enough to have been born alive.

Unfortunately that condition is that you must eventually die.

We can’t prove that currently, not everyone that has been born has also died yet.

So far it appears to have been an inevitable eventuality, but I can see what you are implying.

It’s akin to the P vs. NP problem.

I just need enough time to witness it, making me the exception.

Archive link archive.ph/lbe7N

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?!

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.

Legally? No. Spiritually? Still probably no.

Better to hold assumption until the courts actually function because Donnie has been wrecking the Justice System lately

Just argue that RoBlox is a platform that makes kids trans and Gay and Roblox would be down in a week.

no. next question?

A minor literally can’t do this in the USA. You scumbags are Fucked.

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.

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.

fuck roblox

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.

Roblox digging their own grave who would have thunk

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.

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

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)

They probably have fine print that says children must have their parent’s permission to sign up, and think that covers them

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

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.

That’s a vile argument. Fuck Roblox.

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.