Arkansas AG Sues Gaming Platform — in the Nation’s #1 Judicial Hellhole
In an unprecedented move, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the people of Arkansas against Roblox — not in Arkansas state court, but more than 1,600 miles away in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint is filled with references to Arkansas law and Arkansas courts, yet it asks a California state judge to apply and interpret those laws — a task far better suited to the very Arkansas courts the AG chose to avoid.
The choice of forum is no accident. Attorney General Griffin handed over his enforcement powers to private outside counsel and allowed the plaintiffs’ firm to attempt to maximize its potential recovery by filing in a jurisdiction known for delivering excessive damage awards. That choice raises hard questions about whose interests this lawsuit actually serves.
A Calculated Forum Choice
The Los Angeles Superior Court was named this year’s #1 Judicial Hellhole — a distinction earned through a reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings and nuclear verdicts®. ATRF doesn’t stand alone in this concern. Law360 recently highlighted that the court is quickly gaining notoriety as a destination for large verdicts and has seen a dramatic increase in the volume of case filings.
Additionally, the Los Angeles Superior Court is home to extensive litigation targeting social media companies utilizing similar theories of liability and plaintiffs have had early success. In March, a multi-million verdict was issued in the first case to go to trial.
Arkansas AG Office Missing in Action
Despite the lawsuit being brought by the Arkansas AG, the complaint isn’t signed by anyone in the Attorney General’s office. Most of the lawyers named are from Lanier Law offices in California and Texas.
The combination is telling: the Arkansas AG is pursuing a case all the way in Los Angeles and doesn’t even have anyone from his own office willing to put a name on the complaint. When a state’s chief legal officer hands the wheel to private contingency-fee lawyers and files in another state, the public is entitled to ask who is really running the show and who is the true beneficiary of the litigation. By injecting the financial interests of outside lawyers into a public enforcement action, Attorney General Griffin risks losing sight of the very public interest he was elected to protect.
Arkansas voters and consumers should be asking Attorney General Griffin why this litigation is being shipped out-of-state and why they don’t have the opportunity to weigh in on important state legal questions.
