May 29, 2026, 00:12 GMT | Insight
A federal judge indicated Thursday that he has no problem approving a settlement between the operators of two gambling websites and parents who claim the sites used
Roblox’s virtual currency to let children place casino-style bets outside the Roblox platform. Through the settlement, the website operators would provide the plaintiffs with information about how the gambling sites worked and how they interacted with Roblox.
A federal judge indicated Thursday that he has no problem approving a settlement between the operators of two gambling websites and a minor who claims the sites used Roblox’s virtual currency to let children place casino-style bets outside the Roblox platform.
The minor, T.D., and parents Nathan Soucek and Yaniv De Ridder, all three listed as plaintiffs, agreed to drop their claims against Paul Clish and Boris Said Jr., who ran the now-defunct gambling sites RBXFlip and RBLXWild, in exchange for information that the plaintiffs said they could not get from Clish through deposition or written discovery (see
here).
The exact information they seek remains under wraps for now. Lawyers the plaintiffs did not return calls from MLex at the time the settlement was filed, and details have been redacted from court filings.
Roblox and a group of virtual casinos are accused of facilitating illegal online gambling targeting children using its in-game virtual currency, “Robux.” A class-action lawsuit claims that kids take the Robux they buy on the platform and place bets on off-platform casino-style websites.
Kids also handed over access to their Roblox accounts so the sites could withdraw their Robux, which were then wagered on games of chance and later cashed out by the sites for real money, with Roblox taking its standard cut on each transaction, the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs’ motion for settlement with the two operators says only that both the plaintiffs and Roblox have long sought information about how the Robux gambling sites worked and how they interacted with Roblox.
“Roblox professes not to have key information, and the settling defendants have resisted providing it,” the motion said. “But they have agreed to lift these barriers and share what they know under oath in return for dismissal.”
It adds that the information is not only valuable to T.D., but also to Roblox, which has said as much in its own court filings. For T.D., the evidence is likely more valuable than any individual damages he could obtain from Clish and Said, especially because he can still seek those damages from Roblox under a joint-liability theory.
However, Roblox has opposed the agreement between the plaintiffs and the website operators.
At a hearing to approve the settlement, US District Judge Vince Chhabria, said he didn’t understand why Roblox objected.
“I don’t understand the objection,” he said, before adding that Roblox appears to have “a number of legitimate concerns,” including that the “one-sided” agreement with Said provides plaintiffs’ counsel with “exclusive access” to his information.
But, “This just seems like a classic situation of alright, 'we were going to get what we can out of the small fish, because what we’re really doing is going after the big fish.’ I mean, that’s what this is, and that happens all the time in settlements,” Chhabria said.
Roblox attorney Robby Saldana also argued that the deal appears to favor T.D.’s attorneys more than T.D., who will receive no monetary compensation. He noted that the settlement’s discovery provisions don’t even guarantee that there will be discovery as to T.D.’s particular transactions on the sites.
“The interests that are being advanced are not really the interests of T.D.; it’s the interests of class counsel and putative classes that have not been certified,” Saldana said. “I think if you look at the settlement, T.D. is giving up his claims against these defendants, some of which are only claims asserted against these defendants and not against Roblox, for nothing in return.”
Chhabria said Roblox’s concerns about one-sided discovery could be dealt with in litigation, and that was not the issue before him. “I think the problem with your motion is that you’re acting like you have a right to have me make a good-faith determination, where the settlement is not going to affect the proportion of your liability. I think you’re trying to fix a square peg into a round hole with this position.”
Saldana countered, “It seems like you’re potentially arguing we don’t have the ability to object to this motion to approve a minor’s settlement.”
Chhabria replied, “I don’t know whether you do or not. I’m somewhat skeptical that you do, but I don’t think it really matters, because I think the concerns that you raise are again either phantom concerns or can be dealt with in the litigation.”
“I don’t agree that these are phantom concerns. I think they are very real concerns in terms of the good-faith settlement issue,” Saldana said. “I would be concerned about trying to kick this down later in the litigation, because I think there are problematic provisions in these agreements that the court has the authority to address now.”
Chhabria responded that he would think about the argument “a little further” and issue a ruling.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.
Tags
Sections:
Data Privacy & Security
Industries:
Computing & Information Technology, Entertainment & Arts, Social Media
Geographies:
North America, United States
Topics:
Child Privacy