NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

V.R., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ROBLOX CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-15216 

D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02716-MMC 

MEMORANDUM*

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 subjectmatter 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.

FILED

DEC 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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).
3 

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 
4 

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 
5 

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. 
6 

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.