V.R. v. Roblox Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 21, 2023
• Docket: 23-15216
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

V.R., No. 23-15216

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02716-MMC

v. MEMORANDUM* ROBLOX CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2023 San Jose, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and PAEZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

V.R., a minor and former user of video game platform Roblox, appeals from

the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject-

matter jurisdiction. V.R. alleges that Roblox unlawfully denies minors refunds for

their purchases of Robux, a virtual currency that users buy to obtain new

characters, weapons, and other in-game benefits. V.R. filed this putative class

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. action on behalf of himself and other minor users who have purchased Robux,

arguing that their purchases are either subject to disaffirmance or void ab initio

under California law. The district court concluded that V.R.’s claims were unripe

and dismissed his amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a complaint for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 963

(9th Cir. 2018) (citing Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir.

2015)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Jones v. Allison, 9

F.4th 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2021). We may exercise our discretion to decide purely

legal issues not initially decided by the trial court. Planned Parenthood of Greater

Wash. & N. Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1100, 1110–11

(9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

We agree that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over

certain of V.R.’s claims, and the rest fail on the merits.

1. Because V.R. alleges that he does not presently play Roblox and does not

intend to play Roblox again, V.R. faces no risk of being subjected to Roblox’s

allegedly illegal refund policy in the future. V.R. therefore does not plead the

imminent and substantial risk of future harm necessary to confer standing to seek

injunctive relief. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ----, 141 S. Ct. 2190,

2210 (2021).

2 2. V.R. advances two theories by which his purchases of Robux are void.

First, V.R. alleges that he disaffirmed his purchases by filing this lawsuit, such that

the contracts became void on the day of filing. Under California law, minors may

generally contract as adults, but retain the power to disaffirm contracts before or

within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. Cal. Fam. Code

§§ 6700, 6710. Disaffirmance may be made by filing suit, Celli v. Sports Car Club

of Am., Inc., 29 Cal. App. 3d 511, 517 (1972), and, upon disaffirmance, the minor

is entitled to a refund, Burnand v. Irigoyen, 30 Cal. 2d 861, 866 (1947).

Under this theory, V.R. asserts an ongoing injury—Roblox’s wrongful

possession of his money after disaffirmance—that is not fairly traceable to any

alleged misconduct by Roblox. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t

Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). If the contracts were merely subject to disaffirmance,

Roblox was not precluded from contracting with minor users. See Cal. Fam. Code

§ 6700 (“Except as provided in Section 6701, a minor may make a contract in the

same manner as an adult, subject to the power of disaffirmance”). Roblox does not

dispute that V.R. has disaffirmed his purchases and is now entitled to a refund.

V.R. does not allege that he has requested a refund from Roblox and does not

plausibly allege that any refund request would be futile. V.R. alleges that Roblox’s

written policy is not to grant refunds “except as required by law” and that Roblox

3 is aware that minors are permitted by law to disaffirm their contracts. And none of

V.R.’s allegations relating to how Roblox handles refunds have to do with

disaffirming minors specifically. V.R. therefore does not plausibly allege that

Roblox has a policy in writing or in practice of not granting refunds to disaffirming

minors. Because V.R. lacks standing to seek relief under this theory, the court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over V.R.’s declaratory judgment claim premised

on disaffirmance.

Second, V.R. alleges that his purchases were void ab initio, such that Roblox

unlawfully took possession of his money in the first place. California law

precludes minors from making certain contracts, including those “relating to any

personal property not in the immediate possession or control of the minor.” Cal.

Fam. Code § 6701(c). V.R. alleges that, by purchasing Robux, the user acquires

only a limited, revocable license to use Robux for their own entertainment on the

Roblox platform. Because that license is revocable, V.R. argues that his purchases

of Robux constitute contracts relating to property not in his possession or control

and are therefore void ab initio under § 6701(c). These allegations, taken as true,

sufficiently establish V.R.’s standing to seek relief for Roblox’s wrongful

possession of his money resulting from purchases V.R. contends were void ab

initio, an injury ongoing since the time of purchase.

3. We exercise our discretion to decide whether V.R.’s amended complaint

4 states a plausible claim for relief, which presents purely legal issues amenable to

initial disposition on appeal. Planned Parenthood, 946 F.3d at 1111.

V.R. does not plausibly allege that his purchases are void under § 6701(c).

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). V.R. argues that, because Roblox

reserved the right to revoke his license to use Robux, his purchases involved

property not in his sole possession or control. However, by its terms, § 6701(c)

applies only to contracts involving property not in the minor’s “immediate

possession or control.” Cal. Fam. Code § 6701(c) (emphasis added); see, e.g.,

Sisco v. Cosgrove, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1302, 1307–08 (1996) (interpreting § 6701(c)

to preclude minors from contracting with respect to future interests). V.R. cites no

persuasive authority to support his proposed interpretation of § 6701(c), which

would largely preclude minors from purchasing software licenses. Nor is there any

reason to believe that “immediate” in this context requires the property to be in the

minor’s sole or exclusive possession or control. Thus, to the extent that V.R.’s

declaratory judgment, Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and unjust enrichment

claims rely on the theory that minors’ purchases of Robux are void ab initio under

§ 6701(c), these claims must be dismissed.

Additionally, V.R. does not plausibly allege that Roblox has an official or de

facto policy of unlawfully denying refunds to disaffirming minors, so he cannot

advance UCL or unjust enrichment claims predicated on such conduct.

5 To the extent V.R. attempts to plead a UCL claim based on a theory of

fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the refundability of in-app purchases, he

does not plausibly allege that he relied on any actionable misrepresentation made

by Roblox.1

AFFIRMED.

1 V.R.’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. 14) is denied.