The “Hard-Knock” Vetting Standard

Stop Litigating “Addiction.” Start Litigating Negligence.

MDL-3166 is not a catch-all for angry parents. It is a battleground for child safety. Secure high-intent, fully vetted Roblox plaintiffs—screened specifically for grooming, exploitation, and failure-to-warn.

THE PROBLEM

Your Intake Team Is Drowning in Noise.

Every minute your intake staff spends talking to a parent about a $50 Robux refund is a minute they aren’t speaking to a victim with a compensable claim.

The current market is flooded with “Gaming Addiction” leads that fail to meet the pleading standards for Sexual Exploitation or Product Liability. These low-quality leads clog your CRM, burn out your staff, and skyrocket your Cost-Per-Acquisition.

At Mohr Marketing, we don’t sell data. We sell the result of a rigorous compliance investigation.

THE SOLUTION

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.

 THE OFFER

Signed Retainers. Ready to File.

We take the risk out of the front end. You receive a complete packet, including the signed retainer and the preliminary case facts, vetted against the criteria that matter for MDL-3166.

• 100% TCPA Compliant.
• Bar-Compliant Advertising.
• Replacement Guarantee on Non-Responsive Leads.

The Inventory Is Moving Fast.

We limit the number of firms we work with to ensure lead quality remains high and competition remains low. Do not fill your docket with fluff. Fill it with facts.

Secure Your Inventory Today

The window to enter the Roblox litigation at the “ground floor” is open. With the potential for settlement values in serious exploitation cases reaching seven figures, this docket represents a high-value addition to your firm’s portfolio.

Mohr Marketing is ready to deploy the Compliance Shield to ensure your intake is ethical, verified, and litigation-ready.

Contact us today to discuss your Roblox acquisition strategy.

Click Here Get a Custom Quote

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 

Best Wishes,
Sue Mohr

Summary

Article Name

Stop Litigating "Addiction." Start Litigating Negligence.

Author

Susan Mohr

Publisher Name

Mohr Marketing, LLC

Publisher Logo