Section 230 and Roblox Lawsuits – Platform Accountability

Section 230 and Platform Accountability

Why Gaming Platforms Should Be Held Liable for Child Exploitation

The Shield That’s Become a Sword

For nearly three decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has served as a powerful liability shield for online platforms. The law’s central provision states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In plain terms: platforms generally can’t be sued for content their users post.

The original purpose was laudable. Congress wanted to encourage platforms to moderate harmful content without fear of being held liable for everything users say. But tech companies have stretched this narrow defense into near-total immunity—even when their own product designs facilitate harm to children.

[Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751]

The Original Intent vs. Current Reality

Congress enacted Section 230 in response to a specific problem. In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995), a court held that because Prodigy moderated some content on its bulletin boards, it could be held liable as a “publisher” for defamatory posts it failed to catch. This created a perverse incentive: platforms that tried to remove harmful content faced greater liability than those that did nothing.

Representative Christopher Cox, one of Section 230’s sponsors, argued on the House floor that Congress should encourage platforms “to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see.”

The law was meant to protect “computer Good Samaritans” who actively worked to keep users safe. It was never intended to shield companies that knowingly design products facilitating child exploitation.

[Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751]

Beyond Content Moderation: Product Design Liability

The key legal question emerging in cases against platforms like Roblox isn’t whether they should be liable for user messages—it’s whether they can be held accountable for how they designed their products in the first place.

Consider the allegations in the Roblox MDL. Plaintiffs aren’t simply claiming Roblox failed to remove bad content. They’re alleging that:

Roblox designed communication features that enable predators to contact children

The platform’s age verification systems were inadequate

Roblox knew about grooming patterns and failed to implement reasonable safeguards

The company misrepresented the safety of its platform to parents

These claims focus on Roblox’s own conduct and product decisions—not on holding the company responsible for what users wrote.

[Source: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/are-roblox-and-discord-protected-from-civil-liability-under-section-230-]

The Product Liability Distinction

Courts have increasingly recognized that Section 230 shouldn’t protect platforms when plaintiffs challenge the design of the product itself rather than third-party content. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) explains that companies have improperly “claimed immunity when they mislead users about the design and safety of their platforms” and “when they fail to implement industry-standard abuse reporting procedures in their products.”

This makes sense. Car manufacturers can’t escape liability for defective brakes by claiming the driver caused the accident. Drug companies can’t avoid responsibility for dangerous side effects by blaming patients. Why should tech platforms escape accountability for design choices that predictably harm children?

[Source: https://epic.org/issues/platform-accountability-governance/section-230-and-platform-accountability/]

What Platforms Knew and When They Knew It

The case for platform accountability becomes even stronger when companies have actual knowledge that their products are being used to harm children—and do nothing meaningful to stop it.

The Epic Games FTC settlement provides a template. The FTC found that Epic knew Fortnite’s default communication settings exposed children to harassment, threats, and sexual content. Despite employee warnings going back to 2017, the company “resisted, deprioritized, and delayed privacy and parental controls.” The result: a record $520 million settlement, including $275 million for children’s privacy violations.

FTC Chair Lina Khan stated: “Protecting the public, and especially children, from online privacy invasions and dark patterns is a top priority for the Commission, and these enforcement actions make clear to businesses that the FTC is cracking down on these unlawful practices.”

[Source: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations]

The Department of Justice Position

The U.S. Department of Justice has called for significant reforms to Section 230, proposing carve-outs for “particularly egregious content” including child exploitation and abuse. The Department’s review concluded that “it makes little sense to immunize from civil liability an online platform that purposefully facilitates or solicits third-party content or activity that would violate federal criminal law.”

Specifically, the DOJ supports:

Denying immunity to platforms that facilitate child abuse

Creating exceptions when platforms have actual knowledge of illegal content

Removing protections for “Bad Samaritans” who purposefully enable harmful activity

[Source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996]

State Attorneys General Take Action

A bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general has pushed back against overly broad Section 230 interpretations. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, more than two dozen attorneys general argued that the statute’s “far-reaching scope of immunity” prevents states from allocating losses for “internet-related wrongs” and erodes “traditional state authority.”

States aren’t waiting for Congress to act. Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, and others have filed enforcement actions against platforms including Roblox, TikTok, Discord, and Meta, alleging violations of state consumer protection laws. These state-law claims often aren’t barred by Section 230 because they focus on the companies’ own misrepresentations and unfair practices.

[Source: https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/the-future-of-section-230-what-does-it-mean-for-consumers/]

The EARN IT Act and Legislative Reform

The EARN IT Act represents the most significant legislative effort to address Section 230’s child safety gaps. The proposed law would condition Section 230 immunity on platforms following best practices to combat child sexual abuse material. Platforms would need to demonstrate compliance with guidelines developed by a commission of law enforcement officials, child safety advocates, and technology experts.

Supporters argue this approach strikes a necessary balance between platform autonomy and child protection, creating incentives for robust safety measures without imposing blanket mandates. The bill has garnered bipartisan support in multiple Congressional sessions.

[Source: https://gammalaw.com/section-230-under-siege-how-would-revisions-affect-gaming-and-web3-platforms/]

The Human Cost of Immunity

Behind the legal arguments are real children and families. When platforms design products that enable predators to contact children, move conversations to encrypted apps, and groom victims over weeks or months, the consequences are devastating.

Alexandra Walsh, an attorney representing families suing Roblox, argues that Section 230 is “irrelevant” to her clients’ claims because they’re not seeking to hold Roblox liable for user content—they’re challenging the company’s own decisions to create a platform where exploitation flourishes.

“What started as a few complaints has ballooned into a wave of litigation as families across the country realize they are victims of the same systemic failures by Roblox and Discord to protect their children,” Walsh told reporters.

[Source: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/are-roblox-and-discord-protected-from-civil-liability-under-section-230-]

The Path Forward

Holding platforms accountable doesn’t require abolishing Section 230 entirely. It requires returning to the law’s original purpose: protecting Good Samaritans who actively work to make their platforms safe, while denying immunity to companies that knowingly facilitate harm.

The arguments for platform accountability in child exploitation cases are compelling:

Platforms design the features that enable predators to contact children

Many platforms have actual knowledge of grooming patterns on their services

Platforms profit from children’s engagement while externalizing safety costs to families

Industry-standard safeguards exist but are often not implemented

Misrepresentations about safety induce parents to allow access

When a gaming platform markets itself to children, collects their data, profits from their engagement, and knows predators are using its service to exploit them, Section 230 should not be a get-out-of-liability-free card.

The Law is Supposed to Protect People Online – Especially Children

Section 230 was enacted to encourage platforms to protect users—especially children—from harmful content. It has instead been weaponized to shield companies from accountability even when their own product decisions facilitate child exploitation.

The emerging legal framework recognizes an important distinction: platforms may have protection for third-party content, but they should face liability for their own design choices, misrepresentations, and failures to implement reasonable safety measures.

As the Roblox MDL and similar cases proceed, courts will have the opportunity to clarify these boundaries and ensure that the children’s safety protections Congress originally envisioned finally become a reality.

Understand the Legal Protections Platforms Rely On

Section 230 is often raised early in these cases, but it is not the end of the story. If your family was harmed, it is worth learning how courts look at claims based on product design, safety failures, and misleading statements – and how those theories may be treated differently than user content issues.

Contact Alonso Krangle at [PHONE] for a free consultation and a confidential conversation about your rights. We will listen to what happened, explain the legal landscape, and help you understand what options may be available.