Minor Children To Arbitrate Personal Data Claims - Roku’s Terms O
Skip to main content
May 18, 2026<br>Volume XVI, Number 138
Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
Login
Search
Search
Trending News
Institutional Ownership of Single-Family Housing and Build-to-Rent Communities: Emerging Regulatory Trends and What Developers Need to Know
McDermott+ Check-Up: May 15, 2026
SEC Raises Threshold for ‘Qualified Client’ Status, Effective June 29, 2026
Medicaid Behavioral Health Investigations and Payment Suspensions in D.C. Are Increasing – How Providers Can Limit Risk
USCIS Requires Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Filings in June 2026
SCOTUS Settles Federal Jurisdiction Question When Claims Are Stayed Under the FAA
Texas Business Court Dismisses Out-of-State Defendants for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Trailer Financing Dispute
Tennessee Enacts New Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements
NYDFS Reaffirms State Fair Lending Obligations
What My Defense Tech Clients Are Teaching Me About Business
DoD Proposes Implementing Rule for FOCI Review Expansion for Unclassified Contracts
39<br>New Articles
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
Eric J. Troutman<br>Email
949-350-3663
Bio and Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Senior Litigation Counsel
Paralegal
Intellectual Property Attorney
Explore More Job Openings
HB Ad Slot
CLICK, AGREE, AND YOUR KIDS ARE BOUND- Court Compels Minor Children To Arbitrate Personal Data Claims Because Their Parents Accepted Roku’s Terms Of Service
by: Eric J. Troutman,<br>Troutman Amin, LLP<br>- CIPAWorld
Monday, May 18, 2026
Related Practices & Jurisdictions
Communications Media Internet<br>Consumer Protection<br>Litigation Trial Practice
9th Circuit (incl. bankruptcy)<br>California
Print<br>Mail<br>Download<br>/>i
In A.A. et al. v. Roku, Inc., six minor children, through their guardians, sued Roku for allegedly collecting their personal data, including voice recordings, geolocation data, and browsing histories, and using that data to target them with advertisements, in violation of federal and state privacy laws. A.A. et al. v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-06284-NW, 2026 WL 1349064 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2026),
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Roku’s motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the minor plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration clause their parents accepted in Roku’s terms of service, even though the children never signed anything themselves.
Roku makes internet-connected devices used to stream video content. To activate and use the streaming function of any Roku product, customers must create a Roku account. Since at least February 2015, Roku has required individuals creating an account to check a box confirming their agreement to Roku’s terms. Those terms require accountholders to be at least 18 years old or the legal age of majority. Roku updated its terms most recently in February 2024, and existing customers were required to affirmatively consent to the updated terms to continue using Roku’s streaming services. Roku also notified customers by email of the update.
Accepting Roku’s terms means accepting its dispute resolution terms, which include a mandatory arbitration clause and a class action waiver. The clause covers any dispute arising from a Roku account, any Roku product, software, or service, any advertising or promotions conducted by or for Roku, or any use or disclosure of a user’s personal information. Customers have 30 days after accepting the terms to opt out of arbitration by sending written notice to Roku. None of the plaintiffs’ guardians did so.
All six plaintiffs were under 13 years old when they used Roku streaming sticks and Roku-enabled TVs to view child-directed content. Their parents and legal guardians had purchased the Roku devices, created the accounts, and accepted Roku’s updated terms. The children themselves never accepted any terms. The families brought 14 claims alleging that Roku violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, and various state laws by targeting advertisements at children and collecting, sharing, and profiting from their personal information.
Roku moved to compel arbitration. The central dispute was not whether a valid arbitration agreement existed; the parties agreed that it did, between Roku and the guardians. The question was whether the children, who were nonsignatories, could be compelled to arbitrate claims involving their own personal data.
The court analyzed Roku’s argument under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which provides that a nonsignatory can be bound to an arbitration agreement where a preexisting relationship exists between the nonsignatory and one of the parties to that agreement, making it equitable to compel arbitration. Under California law, the parent-child relationship is one such preexisting relationship.
The families argued that the preexisting relationship doctrine applies only in narrow contexts, such as contracts for...