795 F.Supp.3d 1156
W.D. Mo.2025Background
- Plaintiff Carey Courtright, on behalf of her minor child K.C., sued multiple video game companies, alleging their products are intentionally designed to be addictive, resulting in harm to minors.
- Defendants include game developers (Another Axiom Inc., Banana Analytics, LLC) and platform providers (Google LLC, Roblox Corp.), among others.
- The amended complaint claims include strict liability (defective design and failure to warn), various negligence theories, products liability, consumer fraud, and conspiracy.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss; the court stayed claims against several parties pending arbitration, but ruled on motions for Another Axiom, Banana Analytics (developers), Google, and Roblox (platforms).
- The court addressed dispositive defenses: Section 230 immunity (for platforms) and First Amendment protection (for game developers), ultimately dismissing all claims against these four defendants without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against platforms are barred by Section 230 | Section 230 does not apply; seeking liability for own conduct, not for third-party content | Section 230 bars all claims tied to publishing third-party content on interactive platforms | Section 230 bars all claims against Google and Roblox; motion to dismiss granted |
| Whether Roblox is a developer or platform | Roblox should be treated as a developer (because Roblox is itself an online game) | Roblox is a platform; facilitates third-party content, not a standalone game | Roblox is a platform; Section 230 analysis applies |
| Whether claims against developers are barred by First Amendment | Claims address non-expressive, harmful conduct (addictive design), not content | Design features are expressive elements of games; imposing liability would regulate speech | First Amendment bars all claims; features are content; strict scrutiny not met |
| Whether requested remedies avoid First Amendment concerns | Seeks warnings, time limits, parental controls—not content alteration | Remedies would require changing protected game content or warnings about expressive content | Remedies implicate protected content; First Amendment prevents such requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (establishes plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (sets plausibility standard for pleading)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) (Section 230 immunity for interactive service providers)
- Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (Supreme Court 2011) (video games protected under First Amendment)
- Ent. Software Ass’n v. Swanson, 519 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2008) (video games are fully protected expressive works)
- Reno v. Am. C.L. Union, 521 U.S. 844 (Supreme Court 1997) (First Amendment rights, especially for speech to minors)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court 1964) (First Amendment limits tort liability based on speech)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court 2011) (speech cannot be restricted due to emotional distress caused by its content)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court 2011) (content-based burden on protected speech presumptively invalid)