Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments—The Company leases office facilities and space for data center operations under operating leases expiring in various years through 2035. Certain of these arrangements have free or escalating rent payment provisions and optional renewal clauses. All of the Company’s leases are accounted for as operating leases. There has been no material change in the Company’s lease commitments during the three months ended March 31, 2025, except for lease commitments primarily related to office facilities and data centers in the ordinary course of business. Purchase Obligations—Non-cancellable contractual purchase obligations primarily consist of contracts associated with data center and software vendors. There has been no material change in the Company’s purchase obligations during the three months ended March 31, 2025, other than non-cancellable purchase commitments made in the ordinary course of business, primarily related to data center and software vendors. Letters of Credit—The Company has letters of credit in connection with its operating leases which are not reflected in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. There have been no material changes to the Company’s letters of credit during the three months ended March 31, 2025. Legal Proceedings—The Company is and, from time to time may in the future become, involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company accrued for immaterial losses related to litigation matters that the Company believes to be probable and for which an amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company considered the progress of these cases, the opinions and views of its legal counsel and outside advisors, its experience and settlements in similar cases, and other factors in arriving at the conclusion that a potential loss was probable. The Company cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for all of these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to the inherent uncertainties of litigation. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings. The maximum amount of liability that may ultimately result from any of these matters cannot be predicted with absolute certainty and the ultimate resolution of one or more of these matters could ultimately have a material adverse effect on our operations. On August 1, 2023, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Colvin v. Roblox (the “Colvin matter”), asserting various claims arising from allegations that minors used third-party virtual casinos to gamble Robux. On December 15, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and on March 26, 2024, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, allowing plaintiffs’ negligence and California Unfair Competition Law claims to proceed. On March 28, 2024, a supplemental order clarified that plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and equitable relief could proceed as well. On April 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint realleging the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and New York General Business Law claims that had been dismissed. Separately, on March 14, 2024, Gentry v. Roblox was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California premised on substantially identical allegations as the Colvin matter. On April 18, 2024, the Gentry v. Roblox matter was consolidated with the Colvin matter. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 23, 2024. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, including actual, punitive, and statutory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 14, 2024, which the court granted in part and denied in part on September 19, 2024. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims and claims for injunctive relief, but allowed plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for negligence and unjust enrichment to proceed. On October 30, 2024, the Company filed an answer denying plaintiffs’ claims. On November 20, 2024, the Company filed an Amended Answer, again denying Plaintiffs’ claims, and adding cross-claims against virtual casino defendants for intellectual property infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, tortious interference, and indemnification, among others. One of the cross-defendants, Based Plate Studios, LLC moved to dismiss Roblox’s claims. On April 16, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Based Plate Studios’ motion to dismiss, allowing the Company’s claims against Based Plate Studios for trademark infringement, violation of California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, tortious interference with contract, breach of contract and indemnification to proceed. Discovery is ongoing. On September 16, 2024, Robinson v. Binello was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:24-cv-06501. The complaint alleges the Company and one of its developers engaged in copyright infringement because a recording that Plaintiff allegedly owns a copyright for was allegedly featured in the “Meep City” experience on Roblox from 2016 to 2022. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the Company has willfully infringed their work, actual damages, equitable relief, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Company has retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2024. On March 24, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion, allowing claims for direct copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement to proceed. Roblox filed an answer denying the claims on April 28, 2025. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all claims asserted against it. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, arising from the above-referenced matters. Indemnification—In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend an indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third-party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. To date, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations. The Company also has directors’ and officers’ insurance.

Lease Commitments—The Company leases office facilities and space for data center operations under operating leases expiring in various years through 2035. Certain of these arrangements have free or escalating rent payment provisions and optional renewal clauses. All of the Company’s leases are accounted for as operating leases. There has been no material change in the Company’s lease commitments during the three months ended March 31, 2025, except for lease commitments primarily related to office facilities and data centers in the ordinary course of business.

Purchase Obligations—Non-cancellable contractual purchase obligations primarily consist of contracts associated with data center and software vendors. There has been no material change in the Company’s purchase obligations during the three months ended March 31, 2025, other than non-cancellable purchase commitments made in the ordinary course of business, primarily related to data center and software vendors.

As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company accrued for immaterial losses related to litigation matters that the Company believes to be probable and for which an amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company considered the progress of these cases, the opinions and views of its legal counsel and outside advisors, its experience and settlements in similar cases, and other factors in arriving at the conclusion that a potential loss was probable. The Company cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for all of these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to the inherent uncertainties of litigation. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings. The maximum amount of liability that may ultimately result from any of these matters cannot be predicted with absolute certainty and the ultimate resolution of one or more of these matters could ultimately have a material adverse effect on our operations.

On August 1, 2023, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Colvin v. Roblox (the “Colvin matter”), asserting various claims arising from allegations that minors used third-party virtual casinos to gamble Robux. On December 15, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and on March 26, 2024, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, allowing plaintiffs’ negligence and California Unfair Competition Law claims to proceed. On March 28, 2024, a supplemental order clarified that plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and equitable relief could proceed as well. On April 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint realleging the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and New York General Business Law claims that had been dismissed.

Separately, on March 14, 2024, Gentry v. Roblox was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California premised on substantially identical allegations as the Colvin matter. On April 18, 2024, the Gentry v. Roblox matter was consolidated with the Colvin matter. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 23, 2024. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, including actual, punitive, and statutory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 14, 2024, which the court granted in part and denied in part on September 19, 2024. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims and claims for injunctive relief, but allowed plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for negligence and unjust enrichment to proceed. On October 30, 2024, the Company filed an answer denying plaintiffs’ claims. On November 20, 2024, the Company filed an Amended Answer, again denying Plaintiffs’ claims, and adding cross-claims against virtual casino defendants for intellectual property infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, tortious interference, and indemnification, among others. One of the cross-defendants, Based Plate Studios, LLC moved to dismiss Roblox’s claims. On April 16, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Based Plate Studios’ motion to dismiss, allowing the Company’s claims against Based Plate Studios for trademark infringement, violation of California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, tortious interference with contract, breach of contract and indemnification to proceed. Discovery is ongoing.

On September 16, 2024, Robinson v. Binello was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:24-cv-06501. The complaint alleges the Company and one of its developers engaged in copyright infringement because a recording that Plaintiff allegedly owns a copyright for was allegedly featured in the “Meep City” experience on Roblox from 2016 to 2022. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the Company has willfully infringed their work, actual damages, equitable relief, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Company has retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2024. On March 24, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion, allowing claims for direct copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement to proceed. Roblox filed an answer denying the claims on April 28, 2025.

Indemnification—In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend an indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third-party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. To date, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions.

The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations. The Company also has directors’ and officers’ insurance.