Another governing body is bringing Roblox under legal scrutiny. San Diego County is suing the platform through its Consumer Fairness and Public Protection Unit, alleging that Roblox marketed itself as a safe space for children to play, create, and connect online but failed to deliver on those promises. The county is pursuing the case under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

The lawsuit comes alongside another case involving AppLovin, whose advertising technology is accused of bypassing parental controls and allowing inappropriate ads to reach children through the apps they use. The complaint also raises concerns about sensitive data that could reveal where a child lives or goes to school. It's another example of authorities stepping in to address ongoing concerns about child safety online. Many of us are tired of hearing the same song and dance.

When platforms repeatedly face scrutiny over child safety, the cycle is familiar. Roblox has introduced measures intended to improve protections for younger users, including its age-based account system, yet questions about the platform's ability to keep children safe persist. Parents have a responsibility to teach their kids digital literacy, but part of that responsibility lies with the companies controlling the environments their children use.

We can't control how an adult enters a server populated by children, how a platform verifies the ages of the people interacting with them, or which ads are approved to appear in the apps our kids use. We can configure every parental control available to us, but we shouldn't have to wonder whether the platforms behind those settings will actually uphold the safety they promise.

Legal Actions Don't Guarantee Safety

San Diego County bringing these allegations into the legal system is another example of what happens when concerns about child safety reach the point of legal action. Lawsuits can pressure companies to make changes, but they don't automatically tell us whether the everyday experience on these platforms has become safer.

Meta's recent settlement touches on this issue. The company agreed to make changes intended to improve safety for younger users, including introducing more protections by default. Meta has also argued that other platforms need to be proactive in creating a safe experience as well because young users don't stay on one platform. They move between different apps and services. Safety improvements on one platform can't address every risk they encounter online with another platform.

Roblox has also introduced changes intended to improve the experience for younger users. Its age-based account system, rolled out in June, is designed to tailor certain features and experiences to different age groups. Whether these changes will make the platform a safer experience remains to be seen. Some people raised concerns about users finding ways around age restrictions. The effectiveness of age verification and enforcement is worth paying attention to.

These updates are steps toward addressing the problem, but introducing a safety feature isn't the same as proving that the experience improved. What matters is whether the restrictions hold up in real-world use, whether they address the risks they're intended to prevent, and if companies are transparent about their limitations.

The Balance of Safety and Privacy With Data

Age verification can help platforms apply age-appropriate restrictions, but the methods used to verify users matter just as much as the restrictions themselves. Roblox partners with a third-party provider for government-issued ID verification rather than collecting and storing those documents itself. That limits the information Roblox directly handles, but it doesn't automatically eliminate every privacy concern regarding data collection.

People are right to ask what information is collected, who processes it, and how it is protected. At the same time, dismissing age verification entirely overlooks its potential role in separating younger users from experiences intended for older audiences. The balance is between collecting the information necessary to provide age-appropriate experiences and avoiding unnecessary collection of sensitive personal data.

This contrasts with the other lawsuit involving AppLovin. San Diego County alleges that AppLovin's technology bypasses safeguards meant to protect kids and still serves ads involving dating, alcohol, and graphic content in mobile games children play. The lawsuit also alleges that the company collects sensitive information from children's devices despite safeguards or opt-outs. This information could potentially reveal where a child lives or goes to school.

These claims have yet to reach a legal conclusion, but they reinforce important aspects we're overlooking in the broader scope of social media. Child safety isn't just about what content appears on a screen. It also involves what information is collected behind the scenes and how that information is used. This is where the responsibility of the platform comes into play: when obligations to protect information and respect the restrictions intended to safeguard those users need transparency.

The Default Experience Needs to Be Safe

These allegations bring us back to the bigger issue of platform responsibility. Meta states that platforms need to work collectively to improve online safety for younger users. Children move between games, social media, videos, and other apps throughout the day. The risks they encounter can overlap, even when the companies behind those experiences operate differently. Roblox and Meta have introduced measures intended to improve younger users' experiences. The updates will have us examine how well they work, and what happens when they fall short. 

Safety settings enabled by default should be the universal standard for all platforms. The current experience often requires parents to navigate settings, enable restrictions, and figure out which controls are necessary for their children to have a safe experience. Safety as a default experience would reverse that process. Instead of requiring families to take extra steps to reduce exposure to certain risks, platforms would begin with age-appropriate protections in place, with less restrictive experiences available where appropriate. No single setting can prevent every inappropriate interaction, misleading advertisement, or misuse of personal information. A safer baseline can reduce the burden on parents and make protection part of the experience from the beginning, rather than something they have to discover and configure themselves.

Digital literacy, conversations about online behavior, and parental involvement are still important. Those responsibilities shouldn't replace the responsibilities companies have to ensure that their own systems work as intended. We shouldn't have to choose between letting our kids explore the internet and constantly worrying about whether the protections we've enabled are actually being upheld. If platforms are going to market themselves as places where children can play, create, and connect, they should be expected to back those promises with safeguards that work in practice.