Is your intake team vetting for “Addiction” or “Negligence”? There is a massive difference in MDL-3166?

The rush for Roblox cases is on. With 70 million daily users, the plaintiff pool is enormous. But if you’ve bought leads recently, you know the reality:

The volume is high. The quality is… mixed.

Too many firms are filling their dockets with “gaming addiction” claims—parents upset about screen time or $50 charges—rather than the specific, compensable torts that will survive a motion to dismiss.

At Mohr Marketing, we stopped casting a wide net. We started using a spear.

We developed a “Hard-Knock” Vetting Protocol specifically for the In re: Roblox Corp. litigation. We don’t just look for gamers; we filter for the specific nexus of harm that defines this MDL:

1. Predator Contact: distinguishing passive viewing from interactive grooming.
2. The “Off-Platform” Pivot: capturing the move to Discord/Snapchat (Failure to Warn).
3. Clinical Damages: prioritizing documented therapy over general behavioral changes.

We just released a brief 2-minute video breakdown of this vetting process, along with a downloadable checklist you can hand directly to your intake manager today.

Stop paying for noise. Start acquiring plaintiffs.

👇 Watch the video.

Read Press Release

ROBLOX CHECKLIST

The “Hard-Knock” Vetting Standard

We use a proprietary 5-step filtration process designed to disqualify 90% of general inquiries, leaving only the cases that survive a Motion to Dismiss.

We don’t just ask “Did your child play?” We investigate the nexus of harm.

What We Verify Before You Ever See the File:

• ✅ The Predator Contact: We validate direct communication (chat/voice) vs. passive viewing.
• ✅ The Off-Platform Pivot: We identify the specific pattern of moving victims to Discord, Snapchat, or Instagram—critical for “Failure to Warn” arguments.
• ✅ Clinical Damages: We prioritize cases with documented therapy, hospitalization, or medical intervention over general “behavioral changes.”
• ✅ Extortion over Refund: We distinguish between simple consumer fraud and genuine sextortion/coercion.

The Mohr Marketing “Hard-Knock” Vetting Criteria

Hard-Knock” Vetting Questions

These go beyond the basic “Did your child play Roblox?” questions and drill down into the specific liability triggers (grooming, negligence, failure to warn) that make a case compensable in the MDL.

1. The “Active Grooming” Escalation

Question: “Did the interactions with the alleged predator involve direct communication (chat, voice) that escalated to requests for personal information, photos, or meetings?”

• Why we ask this: We disqualify leads based solely on “exposure” to inappropriate content. To prove negligence and specific harm, we screen for interactive grooming rather than passive viewing. This separates true victims from general content moderation complaints.

2. The “Off-Platform” Pivot

Question: “Did the alleged predator attempt to or successfully move the conversation from Roblox to an encrypted or third-party platform (e.g., Discord, Snapchat, Instagram)?”

• Why we ask this: This is a critical indicator of predator modus operandi. It helps establish the “failure to warn” and “design defect” arguments—that Roblox’s safety features failed to prevent the child from being lured off-site where the abuse escalated.

3. The “Compensable Damages” Threshold

Question: “Has the child received, or has a medical professional recommended, clinical treatment (therapy, counseling, hospitalization) specifically related to the incident, such as for anxiety, depression, self-harm, or eating disorders?”

• Why we ask this: This is the hardest knock. We filter out “gaming addiction” (which is harder to litigate) and general parental frustration. We only deliver cases with documented or clinically recommended medical damages, ensuring the case has settlement value.

4. The “Sextortion” vs. “Spending” Distinction

Question: “If money was lost, was it strictly in-game purchases (Robux), or was financial transactions used as leverage for silence, coercion, or the exchange of explicit material?”

• Why we ask this: We must separate “Consumer Fraud” (my kid stole my credit card) from “Sexual Exploitation/Extortion.” We instantly disqualify standard refund requests to ensure your docket is filled with high-value personal injury and emotional distress claims.

5. The “Identity Verification” Check

Question: “Can you provide the specific username of the alleged predator or chat logs/screenshots that corroborate the interaction occurred within the relevant statute of limitations?”

• Why we ask this: This is an evidence preservation check. While not every parent has this immediately, asking it upfront signals to the lead that this is a serious legal proceeding, not a customer service complaint. It establishes the “seriousness” intent of the plaintiff immediately.

Ready to fill your docket with valid cases?

Partner with Mohr Marketing to secure high-quality, compliant plaintiffs.

Contact Mohr Marketing to deploy the Compliance Shield today.

Click Here Get a Custom Quote

Read Press Release

Let’s discuss your specific needs and how our Compliance Program, AI Lead Generation Technology, digital marketing, and mass tort cases can help you achieve your growth goals.

www.mohrmktg.com 

Mohr Marketing Team

Summary

Article Name

Is your intake team vetting for "Addiction" or "Negligence"? There is a massive difference in MDL-3166

Description

The rush for Roblox cases is on. With 70 million daily users, the plaintiff pool is enormous. But if you’ve bought leads recently, you know the reality: The volume is high. The quality is... mixed.

Author

Mohr Marketing Team

Publisher Name

Mohr Marketing, LLC

Publisher Logo