Companies’ Use of Arbitration Agreements Exposes Their Willingness to Put Profits Before People
When the failures of powerful corporations cause serious harm to individuals, the legal process provides the only form of recourse. But numerous companies—household names like Roblox, Uber, and Disney—are trying to use arbitration agreements to deprive plaintiffs of their rights in matters as serious as child exploitation, sexual assault, and wrongful death.
The impact of these disingenuous practices extends far beyond the individual plaintiffs these companies are trying to force into a secret and confidential arbitration process. Forcing confidentiality for the sake of preserving the company’s reputation keeps the public in the dark, concealing real risks instead of making efforts to mitigate them.
When no one has the opportunity to learn from avoidable accidents and preventable tragedies, nothing changes. Make no mistake: mandating arbitration in matters of serious injury or assault is all about keeping the bad press out of the public eye, not about resolving these legal issues more efficiently.
This disturbing trend has already raised legal issues, but it’s also bringing up serious questions about how we, as a society, value individual rights in the face of corporate policies. Namely, is this really what we want —to let companies strip away individuals’ constitutional rights in serious legal matters through overreaching enforcement of arbitration agreements hidden in the terms and conditions of routine services?
Through Motions to Compel Arbitration, Roblox and Discord Aim to Hide Safety Failures From the Public at the Expense of an Exploited Child
A particularly heinous—and timely—example of this worrying trend is a motion recently filed by defendants Roblox and Discord in a legal action in which our firm represents the plaintiff.
We’re representing a minor child in a lawsuit against Roblox and Discord for facilitating and enabling the horrific sexual exploitation of our client by a dangerous predator.
Using features on Roblox and Discord, this predator was able to contact, groom, and coerce our client into sending sexually explicit images of himself in exchange for Robux, the digital currency on Roblox's platform. Our client has suffered unimaginable harm—and he is far from the only one.
For years, as a result of the defendants' misrepresentations about the safety of their platforms and systemic failures to protect children, countless children have been sexually exploited and abused by predators on Roblox and Discord.
When such widespread and damaging harm has been brought to a company’s attention, what we want—for our own client’s sake and the sake of preventing future harm—is to see that corporation make good-faith efforts to address their failures and make things right. Instead, Roblox and Discord’s response only further established that the companies are more concerned with appearances and profits than with addressing failures that threaten young users’ safety.
In response to our client's lawsuit, Roblox and Discord are seeking to deprive him of his right to a jury trial by forcing him into confidential arbitration, claiming that his father agreed to terms of use that require his minor child to pursue his claims out of the public eye. In doing so, Roblox takes the remarkable position that, because this minor child received so many "benefits" from using the platform, he cannot now complain that Roblox is trying to prevent him from seeking justice in court for the life-altering harm he has suffered.
The defendants' maneuver is a shameful attempt to try to silence our client and deter thousands of others who have been similarly harmed. We are confident that this gambit will fail, and we look forward to continuing to pursue justice for our client in the court. Still, for consumers of all kinds—particularly children at risk of online exploitation and their concerned parents—the lengths companies are willing to go to just to silence victims who have been seriously harmed are unnerving.
Uber Used Arbitration Clauses and Confidentiality Provisions to Silence Victims of Assault
Roblox’s motion to force this child sexual exploitation case into arbitration, as shocking as it might be on the surface, is only the latest such legal maneuver among major companies.
For years, rideshare company Uber included in its terms of service mandatory arbitration clauses and confidentiality provisions. Being required to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than court may not be worth noting in run-of-the-mill matters involving refunds, fare discrepancies, or unauthorized charges. However, the company was routinely enforcing this clause in matters with much higher stakes: cases in which an Uber rider, driver, or employee was sexually harassed or even sexually assaulted in connection with the use of the transportation network’s services.
Uber engaged in a pattern of forcing sexual assault victims to resolve their cases through confidential arbitration, preventing them from ever getting their day in court as a means of avoiding public knowledge of the company’s negligence and resulting backlash. Confidentiality provisions of Uber’s terms of service also kept sexual assault survivors from speaking out publicly, further silencing them.
When Uber finally announced in May 2018 that the company would no longer enforce the mandatory arbitration clause or the confidentiality provisions in individual sexual assault claims, the Chief Legal Officer at the time tried to frame the policy change as an effort to give survivors of assault control over their claims. However, the harsh criticism these practices had drawn had given rise to considerable public pressure against the company, as well as legal challenges.
Disney Attempted to Enforce Streaming Service Terms and Conditions to Keep 2024 Wrongful Death Lawsuit Out of Court
Imagine if accepting the terms and conditions for a streaming service meant signing away your right to legal recourse for real-world harm. That nearly happened last year to a grieving widower due to Disney’s overzealous attempts to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause when hit with a wrongful death claim.
When plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo’s late wife Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan ate a meal at a Disney park restaurant in 2023, she allegedly suffered a fatal allergic reaction. Per a CBS News report, Tangsuan, a doctor with a severe dairy and nut allergy, had “elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system” when she died of anaphylaxis after dining at the restaurant—despite repeatedly asking about the possible presence of those allergens in the food she ordered.
After Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit in 2024, Disney sought to get the case tossed out of court and instead forced into confidential arbitration. The technicalities on which the company based this motion were arbitration clauses embedded in the terms of use of streaming service Disney+, which the plaintiff had once signed up for a trial plan for years before, and the Disney Parks’ website, on which he purchased park tickets.
This tragic story and the shocking legal maneuvers the corporation attempted drew national attention. Although Disney eventually withdrew its arbitration demand in regard to this particular lawsuit, this case illustrates exactly how overly broad and unwarranted application of arbitration clauses can compromise consumers’ rights.
A World Where Corporate Clauses Override Actual Individuals’ Constitutional Rights
If corporations like Roblox get their way, injured victims, exploited children, and families struggling to move forward after tragedies will never see their day in court. Instead, these serious matters will be banished from courtrooms and from public knowledge, permitting corporations to carry on business as usual while consumers remain unaware of risks that have already proven dangerous.
We can’t let companies strip away consumer rights to such a degree where agreeing to the terms and conditions of using a website or streaming service constitutes an agreement not to sue for sexual exploitation, assault, or deadly acts of negligence in court. Someone has to take a stand for the American consumer now—before this sort of overreaching policy enforcement becomes the new normal.
