Pathstone Holdings LLC lifted its holdings in Central Securities Co. ( NYSE:CET – Free Report ) by 259.7% during the 3rd quarter, HoldingsChannel reports. The institutional investor owned 140,198 shares of the company’s stock after purchasing an additional 101,226 shares during the period. Pathstone Holdings LLC’s holdings in Central Securities were worth $6,430,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. A number of other institutional investors and hedge funds have also recently modified their holdings of CET. Wolverine Asset Management LLC grew its position in Central Securities by 5,584.1% in the 2nd quarter. Wolverine Asset Management LLC now owns 4,661 shares of the company’s stock valued at $205,000 after acquiring an additional 4,579 shares during the last quarter. Raymond James Trust N.A. bought a new position in shares of Central Securities in the second quarter worth about $222,000. Evanson Asset Management LLC lifted its holdings in Central Securities by 12.4% during the 2nd quarter. Evanson Asset Management LLC now owns 5,576 shares of the company’s stock valued at $245,000 after buying an additional 615 shares in the last quarter. Essex Financial Services Inc. purchased a new stake in Central Securities in the 2nd quarter valued at about $302,000. Finally, Cetera Advisors LLC bought a new position in Central Securities in the 1st quarter worth about $606,000. 8.68% of the stock is owned by institutional investors. Insiders Place Their Bets In related news, CEO John C. Hill bought 600 shares of the stock in a transaction on Wednesday, October 30th. The stock was bought at an average price of $46.71 per share, for a total transaction of $28,026.00. Following the completion of the acquisition, the chief executive officer now directly owns 69,296 shares in the company, valued at approximately $3,236,816.16. This represents a 0.87 % increase in their ownership of the stock. The acquisition was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through the SEC website . Also, VP Andrew J. O’neill bought 1,080 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction on Thursday, October 24th. The shares were bought at an average cost of $46.09 per share, for a total transaction of $49,777.20. Following the transaction, the vice president now directly owns 84,916 shares in the company, valued at approximately $3,913,778.44. This represents a 1.29 % increase in their position. The disclosure for this purchase can be found here . Company insiders own 10.30% of the company’s stock. Central Securities Stock Down 0.3 % Central Securities Increases Dividend The company also recently announced a semi-annual dividend, which will be paid on Friday, December 20th. Shareholders of record on Friday, November 15th will be given a dividend of $2.05 per share. The ex-dividend date is Friday, November 15th. This is a positive change from Central Securities’s previous semi-annual dividend of $0.20. This represents a yield of 1.3%. About Central Securities ( Free Report ) Central Securities Corp. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm invests in the public equity markets of the United States. It also invests on bonds, convertible bonds, preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants, options real estate, or short-term obligations of governments, banks and corporations. Read More Want to see what other hedge funds are holding CET? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Central Securities Co. ( NYSE:CET – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for Central Securities Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Central Securities and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola claimed he wanted to "harm himself" after visible scratches were spotted on his face. The Spaniard’s troubles grew on Tuesday evening as City’s winless run continued against Feyenoord. After five previous defeats, the Premier League champions looked set to secure victory as they raced into a 3-0 lead against the Dutch side. But they inexplicably collapsed within the final 15 minutes to draw. And speaking after the game, Guardiola appeared to have cut his nose, while he also had other marks all over his head. Asked by journalists the reason for the injuries, he suggested that it was a self-inflicted accident, but joked that he wanted to hurt himself. Guardiola said: “My finger, here [points to nose]. My nail. I want to harm myself.” A member of the assembled media attempted to console the Spaniard. Speaking as Guardiola left the press conference, they said: “It will be okay.” Things are not set to get any easier for City this weekend as they take on table-topping Liverpool at Anfield. And Guardiola has underlined his desire to get his side back on track ahead of the trip to Merseyside. He added: “Three episodes didn’t allow us to win, what we needed. For many, many reasons, not just for the terms of qualification and get the points to go through. Other reasons. “It’s what it is. So difficult to swallow right now. The game was good. We scored three, we could have scored more, we do everything but at the end, we give away especially the first one and after we are not stable enough to do it. What's going wrong with Man City? Share your thoughts in the comments below “It’s not about not running, no commitment, nothing like that but in football, you have to do it in certain moments. The second goal, the second post, touch the post. Improve, what can you do? So rest one or two days and prepare for Anfield.” Asked how he’s going to pick his players up, Guardiola replied: “We have to, I have to, it’s my job. We play a good game but of course we need to do it and we were not able to control the last minutes.” Should they lose to Arne Slot ’s side this weekend, City could already find themselves 11 points off the pace in the race for the Premier League title. Following the trip to Liverpool, City then host Nottingham Forest ahead of a trip to Crystal Palace . Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Sky has slashed the price of its Sky Sports, Sky Stream, Sky TV and Netflix bundle in an unbeatable new deal that saves £240 and includes 1,400 live matches across the Premier League, EFL and more.

Julián Álvarez picking up the scoring pace with Atletico MadridResearchers from the Israeli cybersecurity company Knostic have unveiled a groundbreaking method to exploit large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, by leveraging what they describe as an "impulsiveness" characteristic in AI. Dubbed flowbreaking, this attack bypasses safety mechanisms to coax the AI into revealing restricted information or providing harmful guidance – responses it was programmed to withhold. The findings, published Tuesday, detail how the attack manipulates AI systems into prematurely generating and displaying responses before their safety protocols can intervene. These responses –ranging from sensitive data such as a boss's salary to harmful instructions – are then momentarily visible on the user’s screen before being deleted by the AI’s safety systems. However, tech-savvy users who record their interactions can still access the fleetingly exposed information. 2 View gallery ChatGPT ( Photo: OpenAI ) How the attack works Unlike older methods such as jailbreaking, which relied on linguistic tricks to bypass safeguards, flowbreaking targets internal components of LLMs, exploiting gaps in the interaction between those components. Knostic researchers identified two primary vulnerabilities enabled by this method: Second Thoughts: AI models sometimes stream answers to users before safety mechanisms fully evaluate the content. In this scenario, a response is displayed and quickly erased, but not before the user sees it. Stop and Roll: By halting the AI mid-response, users can force the system to display partially generated answers that have bypassed safety checks. “LLMs operate in real-time, which inherently limits their ability to ensure airtight security,” said Gadi Evron, CEO and co-founder of Knostic. “This is why layered, context-aware security is critical, especially in enterprise environments.” 2 View gallery Copilot ( Photo: Robert Way / Shutterstock ) Implications for AI security Knostic’s findings have far-reaching implications for the safe deployment of AI systems in industries such as finance, health care, and technology. The company warns that, without stringent safeguards, even well-intentioned AI implementations like Microsoft Copilot and Glean could inadvertently expose sensitive data or create other vulnerabilities. Evron emphasized the importance of "need-to-know" identity-based safeguards and robust interaction monitoring. “AI safety isn’t just about blocking bad actors. It’s about ensuring these systems align with the organization’s operational context,” he said. About Knostic Founded in 2023 by Gadi Evron, a veteran of the cybersecurity industry, and Sunil Yu, former chief security scientist at Bank of America, Knostic operates out of Israel and the U.S., employing 14 staff members. The startup has raised $3.3 million in pre-seed funding and works with clients in finance, health care, retail, and tech. Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play : https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store : https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv Knostic has already gained recognition, winning awards at RSA Launch Pad and Black Hat Startup Spotlight – two of the world’s premier cybersecurity events. Notably, it was the only AI security company to reach the finals in both competitions. As the adoption of AI accelerates, Knostic’s findings serve as a crucial reminder of the ongoing need to address vulnerabilities in these transformative technologies. >

Andy Murray is to take over as coach for his old rival Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open. Here, the PA news agency looks at the seven Grand Slam finals contested by the pair. Murray turned in a poor performance in Melbourne, failing at the third attempt to win a set in a Grand Slam final as Djokovic broke serve seven times and hit six aces to claim a comprehensive win 6-4 6-2 6-3. “You had an unbelievable tournament and deserved to win,” the Scot said in reference to his opponent. “I look forward to playing against you in the future.” It took five sets for Murray to claim his first Grand Slam title, becoming the first British man to achieve the feat since Fred Perry in 1936. The final clocked in at four hours and 54 minutes as Murray prevailed 7-6 (10) 7-5 2-6 3-6 6-2 to end a wait of 287 tournaments in British male tennis for a victory. “I want to congratulate Andy on his first grand slam, he thoroughly deserves it,” said Djokovic. “I really tried my best. I gave it my all. It was a tremendous match.” Congrats @DjokerNole . Incredible athlete. Perfect gentleman. #ausopen — judy murray (@JudyMurray) January 27, 2013 Murray was dogged by injury in Melbourne with a heavily strapped right foot and a tight hamstring as Djokovic fought back from a set down to land a third consecutive Australian Open title, 6-7 (2) 7-6 (3) 6-3 6-2. “His record here is incredible,” said Murray. ”Very few people have managed to do what he has done, a deserved champion.” Murray ended a 77-year wait for a British men’s victory at Wimbledon by defeating his old foe 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 in SW19, serving emphatically with nine aces and only two double faults to throw off the weight of history. The Scot had been 4-1 down in the second set as the match threatened to slip away from him and with it the chance to cement his place in tennis folklore, but having wasted three championship points he finally sealed the deal when Djokovic drove into the net with his final shot. A post shared by Novak Djokovic (@djokernole) Djokovic triumphed 7-6 (5) 6-7 (4) 6-3 6-0 and after the 24 matches and five grand slam finals the pair had played against each other across nine years, the Serb had established a 16-8 overall lead and 3-2 in slam finals. “Success is being happy,” said Murray. “It’s not about winning every single tournament you play, because that isn’t possible.” What a journey. Really grateful for everything. I'll keep working hard. Love is the key! pic.twitter.com/CrT7TYRL3O — Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) January 31, 2016 The Serb landed a fourth win over Murray in Australian Open finals and his 11th in 12 matches to land his 11th major title, whilst the Scot made it five consecutive final losses in Melbourne, a new record in the Open era. “I feel like I’ve been here before,” said Murray after a 6-1 7-5 7-6 (3) loss. “Congratulations Novak, six Australian Opens, an incredible feat, and incredible consistency the last year.” "This is something that’s so rare in tennis... it’s gonna take a long time for it to happen again" Andy to Novak ❤️ pic.twitter.com/LN7dW8ZJED — Roland-Garros (@rolandgarros) June 5, 2016 This was Murray’s first final at Roland Garros but it brought a familiar conclusion as Djokovic triumphed against him for the fifth time in seven Grand Slam finals. The 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 success was a first win for the Serb in Paris and saw him hold all four slams simultaneously. Murray went on to win Wimbledon the following month and was voted BBC Sports Personality of the Year but, addressing Djokovic in Paris, said: “This is his day today. What he’s achieved the last 12 months is phenomenal, winning all four of the grand slams in one year is an amazing achievement.”

White House pressing Ukraine to draft 18-year-olds so it has enough troops to battle RussiaUnsurprisingly, three-time NASCAR Cup Series champion Joey Logano was effusive of the current playoff format when asked to chime in on the ongoing discussion of a potential tweak. “Everyone is going to have opinions on that,” Logano said last Friday ahead of the 2024 NASCAR Awards in Charlotte “I think we all need to understand why we changed it in the first place. "The fans said they didn’t like [the previous format]. We changed it. Everybody loved it and it was great. Now we’re going to complain about it again. Come on, guys. Jeez.” Toni Breidinger makes decision on NASCAR future by agreeing 2025 move NASCAR fans spot curious detail in new F1 team announcement Logano claimed the crown this season but was far from the most dominant driver over the course of the campaign. While his four victories were the second most behind Kyle Larson , he finished just just seven top-five finishes. 10 drivers had more Logano, including Larson (who finished with 15). The three-time Cup Series winner did pull off a series of timely victories. He was victorious in the first race of the playoffs to clinch his spot in the next round and effectively nullify any seeding disadvantage he had entering the Round of 16. He advanced to the Round of 8 by the skin of his teeth thanks to a key Alex Bowman disqualification and then showed out when it mattered most in the last two rounds of the playoffs. But while Logano understandably is in favor of the format, his fellow drivers are all advocating for changes, even if they like some aspects of the current system. "I love that aspect of it," fifth-place finisher Christopher Bell said of playoff races mattering more. "[However,] maybe adjusting the points systems to make sure we get the right cars into the championship event would be awesome." Martin Truex Jr admitted the best team over the season rarely wins the championship. “That’s correct. I think that’s what they look at," he said. DON'T MISS: Christopher Bell shares desire to copy NASCAR rival Kyle Larson's bold plan NASCAR legend Greg Biffle goes public with Daytona 500 comeback plea Dale Earnhardt Jr. gives NASCAR fans news they wanted after Budweiser return "Now, the only thing I will say is [in] baseball, football, basketball. they all play on the same court every week. They’re playing the same game. Racing is different. Veteran Brad Keselowski mentioned another key factor in NASCAR's decision to continue with the playoff format as is" “I think we have media partners who really, really think the playoffs are great and it’s important to make them happy,” Keselowski said. “And there’s some sentiment from fans about it as well that is important to recognize. So it’s a difficult situation.” Unsurprisingly, Denny Hamlin agreed with most of his fellow drivers:“I think the message we are trying to send is: Make the regular season matter more," he admitted.UAE airlines keep link to Israel

Schieffelin has 18 points, 13 rebounds and 8 assists as Clemson hands Penn State first loss 75-67

Swansea boss Luke Williams thought his side were second best for the majority of the contest despite earning a 2-1 win at Derby. The Swans stunned Pride Park into silence with less than two minutes on the clock when Zan Vipotnik sent a bullet past Jacob Widell Zetterstrom before Ronald slotted home his first of the season in the 14th minute. Cyrus Christie brought Tom Barkhuizen down inside the box and Nathaniel Mendez-Laing dispatched the resulting penalty to cut the deficit in half and, despite piling on the pressure, Derby succumbed to a second home defeat of the season. Williams told a press conference: “We started the game very well, we were good up until we scored the second goal then we lost the grip on the game and I thought Derby were the better team. “The next thing for us we have to be able to maintain that level throughout the game and we weren’t able to do that to be quite honest today. “They made it difficult, reacted very well after the second goal and didn’t go under, far from it.” Swansea leapfrogged their opponents into the top half of the table with their sixth win of the season and took three points back to south Wales following two last-minute defeats by Burnley and Leeds heading into the match. Williams added: “We’ve recently conceded late goals but they’re a very resilient group and we saw it out in the end. “We’ve dominated games a lot but probably failed to score when we’ve been that dominant and tonight we managed to score the goals when we were dominant. “We scored the goals at the right time today.” Derby had been unbeaten in their last three matches coming into this one but Paul Warne put defeat down to a poor start. He said: “We conceded two and didn’t get close enough, weren’t aggressive enough, not enough body contact and looked soft, that’s my fault. “Maybe I didn’t message it properly. Sometimes it doesn’t come down to shape and tactics but I thought that was what the difference was. “Credit Swansea for the win but after the 25 mins it looked like we would score. I really enjoyed it, that’s the truth. I had 70 minutes of a team giving everything, I don’t think we’ve had that many attempts in the Championship this season. “It’s a rude awakening, last year we would’ve won that 4-2.”I’m interviewing for my dream job. What are hiring managers looking for right now?Ninth Circuit Does Flip Turn, Reversing Antitrust Case Against World Aquatics In a decision that is making waves through the world of competitive swimming, the Ninth Circuit reversed a California district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Fédération Internationale de Natation (“FINA”), now known as World Aquatics, on antitrust claims brought by a group of professional swimmers and the International Swimming League (the “ISL”). ( Shields v. World Aquatics , No. 23-15092 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2024) (unpublished)). As we covered in a prior edition of Three Point Shot , this legal battle first began in December 2018, when the plaintiffs – a group of professional swimmers and the ISL – filed antitrust claims against FINA, contesting the organization’s rules that effectively barred national swimming federations from collaborating with “non-sanctioned” competitions such as the ISL. These rules placed national federations in a difficult position, as their cooperation with unsanctioned events could result in penalties. FINA, first established in 1908 during the Olympic Games in London, is a Swiss organization recognized as the global governing body for aquatic sports, including swimming, and its membership includes 209 national federations. The national federations, by virtue of their membership, agree to comply with FINA rules and enforce FINA rules and penalties against swimmers. FINA sets the qualifying criteria for swimmers to participate in the Olympics and recognizes only qualifying times from competitions held or sanctioned by FINA. Swimmers themselves, however, are not members of FINA and are not required to swim in FINA-sanctioned events exclusively. FINA keeps a calendar of and holds its own international competitions, and if member federations also want to hold international competitions on their own or in partnership with independent organizations, they are required to seek FINA’s prior approval. In 2017, a nascent ISL sought to organize international competitions among the world’s best swimmers, and structure them as a more traditional sports league. The ISL initially sought to hold competitions officially sanctioned by FINA (which comes with a spot on the FINA calendar alongside events such as the FINA World Championships and allows times to be official for purposes of Olympic qualification and world records). When negotiations with FINA stalled, however, the ISL went to the individual national federations to host their events. However, facing potential sanctions, the national federations declined to take the risk of getting in the water with the ISL. Back in December 2018 the swimmers and the ISL brought a medley of antitrust claims alleging that FINA and its member federations conducted an illegal group boycott of the ISL by refusing to cooperate with the ISL. The essence of the complaint was that FINA used its control over Olympic aquatic sports to determine the terms of compensation and competition for international swimming events outside of the Olympic Games and FINA’s own competitions, thus engaging in anticompetitive conduct. As the Ninth Circuit stated in its decision reversing summary judgement in favor of FINA, while FINA never imposed sanctions on any swimmers for participating in non-FINA events, plaintiffs introduced evidence that all interested parties understood FINA rules might expose swimmers to suspensions, including from competing at the Olympics and World Championships, if they participated in unaffiliated ISL events. In the ISL’s view, this cut off its access to the very top-tier talent it needed to compete in the marketplace. Notably, in 2019, following the filing of the suit, FINA issued a statement that clarified it “recognizes the right of athletes to participate in any swimming event” but that if the event does not receive prior FINA approval, the “results of the competition would not be recognized by FINA.” In the meantime, the ISL hosted seasons in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and sought and obtained FINA's approval for some events in which ISL partnered with member federations. In January 2023, the district court cleared the pool and ruled in favor of FINA. In its decision, the lower court granted summary judgment on the grounds that FINA’s rules, which stated “no affiliated Member shall have any kind of relationship with a non-affiliated... body [like the ISL]” without risking suspension or having the results be unrecognized internationally, did not unreasonably restrain trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the district court, the rules did not expressly prevent swimmers from competing in unsanctioned events but instead they “prevented... member federations from affiliating with the ISL and other non-sanctioned entities.” The district court further reasoned that the ISL could – and did – hold its own top-tier competitions without requiring any formal affiliation with member federations, and therefore found that there was no evidence of anticompetitive effects. Generally, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.” There are three standards for determining if restraints are unreasonable: (1) per se ,if they always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output, (2) “rule of reason” (most common), if not per se and following a fact-specific assessment of “‘market power and market structure...to assess the [restraint]’s actual effect’ on competition” or (3) “quick look,” if they are not per se but “where it is clear that the challenged restraints’ principal or only effect is anticompetitive.” In a reversal, the Ninth Circuit changed strokes and found the district court’s conclusions were merely “one interpretation of the evidence,” giving new life to the plaintiffs’ claims. Applying a de novo review, the appellate court found that there were several triable issues that the district court had overlooked. Most notably, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had raised a legitimate question as to whether FINA’s rules constituted a per se violation of antitrust law (i.e., unlawful group boycott) by preventing member federations and swimmers from doing business with the ISL without risking severe sanctions. According to the appeals court, a rational jury could find that the pre-amended rule concerning federations participating in unsanctioned events had “no purpose other than to disadvantage FINA’s competitors.” The Ninth Circuit also found that the plaintiffs created a triable issue under the “quick look” standard and determined that there was enough evidence to suggest that FINA’s rules may have imposed a “naked restraint on price and output” in the market for professional swimming competitions. Significantly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that the more lenient “rule of reason” antitrust analysis was necessary. While FINA argued that the rule of reason should apply because “sports leagues and joint venture restrictions are unique antitrust contexts that are generally analyzed under the rule of reason,” the Ninth Circuit instead found that (1) “FINA and its members are not a joint venture sports league, but an association of independent national federations,” and (2) while “ some restraints are necessary to create or maintain a league sport [that] does not mean all aspects of elaborate interleague cooperation are.” Applying this rationale, the appeals court stated that “a rational trier of fact could conclude that FINA can organize swimming competitions and maintain its calendar of events without restricting participation in non-affiliated events.” In addition, even though the appeals court affirmed the ruling that the plaintiffs failed to define the “relevant market” under a rule of reason analysis, the court stated that “a plaintiff is not required to define a particular market for... a rule of reason claim based on evidence of the actual anticompetitive impact of the challenged practice.” In this case, the court found that, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, “a rational trier of fact could conclude that by threatening to sanction swimmers, [FINA’s rules] prevented the ISL from holding events in 2018 and thereby reduced output and wages.” In the end, although the Ninth Circuit decision in the FINA case is unpublished and lacks precedential authority, it still may have an impact on future similar challenges to restrictions placed on athletes participating in non-league or governing body-sanctioned events. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, there are bigger issues at play concerning the state of the league, as the ISL, whose founder is Ukrainian, most recently postponed its 2022 season due to the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war. There have been no reported announcements about its return. Child’s Play: Roblox Must Face Tort Claims over Minors Gambling Robux in Online Casinos “No dice,” ruled a judge in the Northern District of California, denying technology and entertainment company Roblox Corp.’s (“Roblox”) motion to dismiss negligence and unjust enrichment claims alleging that it failed to shield minors from third-party casino sites that use the Roblox platform’s in-game currency system. ( Colvin v. Roblox Corp. , No. 23-04146 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2024)). The claims originally arose last August when the parents of minor children brought a putative class action against the makers of popular gaming platform Roblox and three online virtual casino operators (the “Gambling Website Defendants” and, together with Roblox, the “Defendants”). The parent-Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants “maintain and facilitate an illegal gambling ecosystem, targeted at children, through Roblox’s online gaming ecosystem and digital currency.” Roblox is an online gaming platform where users can create their own games, or play games created by others, using Roblox Studio, a game development engine that enables users to design virtual environments, characters and gameplay mechanics, even for those with no programming experience. The platform, which experienced a surge in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, offers games in a variety of genres, such as adventure, role-playing and simulation. It also has a social multiplayer element where users create or join groups and chat with each other. According to the complaint, over 70% of Roblox users are under 18, and more than half of all users are under 13, making the platform’s audience predominantly minors. Roblox is free-to-play and offers in-game purchases through a virtual currency called Robux, which can have real-world value. Users may acquire Robux in one of several ways: either by purchasing them with real-world currency (via credit card, digital payment services, or gift cards), selecting a paid Roblox Premium membership (that comes with a monthly Robux stipend), or by developing games or selling virtual creations, game assets, or other items to other Roblox users. Through Roblox’s Developer Exchange Program (the “Program”), creators can convert their earned Robux into real-world money. Only those who meet certain eligibility requirements set forth by Roblox and who register for the Program may participate. Roblox has skin in the game, profiting from currency conversions by taking at least a 30% marketplace fee on all in-game, user-to-creator transactions for virtual content on the platform, and setting the exchange rate when developers cash out Robux through the Program. All three Gambling Website Defendants were allegedly members of the Program, which is central to the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiffs allege that, through the Program, the Gambling Website Defendants aren’t just cashing in their chips—or rather, their Robux—for real-world monetary gains, but also spinning the wheel by enticing minor users to convert their Robux to gambling credits to use at off-platform online casinos, which are not licensed and which are promoted online as places to gamble Robux. This gambling operation allegedly occurs through a multi-step process (Roblox, in its first amended answer , denies allegations that Plaintiffs “lost” or “wagered” Robux on third party sites and states that any purported use of Robux to engage in “gambling” on such sites violates Roblox’s terms of service). After acquiring Robux, the user navigates to one of the Gambling Website Defendants’ virtual casinos (which exist outside the Roblox ecosystem). The user then links their Robux wallet on Roblox’s website to the gambling site and, according to the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint , “the user’s Robux do not leave the Roblox platform, but instead are transferred to another Roblox account controlled by a Gambling Website Defendant.” The gambling website then “converts” the minor user’s Robux into credits to be wagered. A crucial step for purposes of Roblox’s purported culpability comes into play at this point. Because Robux cannot be transferred to other users in the absence of a transaction or removed from the Roblox platform, a Roblox account controlled by a Gambling Website Defendant sells the user an otherwise worthless object or experience for the amount of Robux the user wishes to deposit as gambling credits on the relevant Gambling Website Defendant’s online casino. By doing so, the Gambling Website Defendants “take control” of, but do not truly convert, the user’s Robux. If the user wins, the Gambling Website Defendant can transfer back their winnings in Robux via a similar transaction as described above. If the user loses, the Gambling Website Defendant retains the user’s Robux and can convert them into real-world currency under the Program. According to the Plaintiffs’ complaint, the house always wins, as “Roblox collects a 30% fee on every transaction that deposits or withdraws funds... [thereby] earning Roblox millions in real-world revenue.” Roblox, in its first amended answer , denies that it “profits” from the alleged transactions and has asserted various cross-claims against the Gambling Website Defendants and seeks injunctive relief barring them from obtaining unauthorized access to Roblox users’ accounts. Plaintiffs contend that Roblox’s liability arises from its role in facilitating these transactions “under [its] virtual roof” and that Roblox maintains a level of oversight such that it ought to possess knowledge of suspicious activities (e.g., the third-party gambling transactions) that violate the platform’s terms of service. As a result, the Plaintiffs claim Roblox should have located and banned the outside gambling sites’ Roblox accounts and prevented future transactions. Roblox counters that it has managed its platform reasonably, and that the gambling sites evade detection by using sophisticated tactics. Roblox also argues that Plaintiffs fail to identify any affirmative act on Roblox’s part that directly increased minors’ risk of gambling. It also argues that Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is “not reasonably foreseeable from Roblox’s operation of its own platform,” where gambling is prohibited, and that to impose such a duty to police millions of user accounts for possible illegal off-platform conduct would be “untenable.” In the original complaint, Plaintiffs brought nine causes of action against the Defendants, including negligence, fraud, and consumer protection-related claims. Back in March 2024, the district court dismissed some ancillary claims, but rejected Roblox’s defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), finding that the Plaintiffs’ claims do not treat Roblox as a publisher or speaker of third-party content on its platform. Rather, the court found that the claims focus on Roblox’s alleged “facilitating transactions between minors and online casinos that enable illegal gambling.” The court also declined to create an exception to a general duty of reasonable care, ruling that Roblox has a duty to “use reasonable care in its conduct, the creation and management of its platform, to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.” Based on this, the court allowed the negligence claims to proceed. The Plaintiffs subsequently upped the ante with an amended complaint , sparking another round of motion practice. In September 2024, the court issued another ruling that partially granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss (axing the fraud-based claims and requests for injunctive relief), while preserving the Plaintiffs’ negligence-related claims. The amended negligence claims, which the court again allowed to proceed, rest on the contention that Roblox violated its duty of care by enabling, failing to detect and, ultimately, profiting from minors’ gambling activities facilitated through Robux transactions. The court characterized Plaintiffs’ negligence claims as misfeasance—an affirmative act that created a dangerous situation—rather than nonfeasance, or a mere failure to prevent harm, a distinction that was pivotal (“True, the complaint uses language about Roblox's failure to act and failure to prevent harm, which sounds more like nonfeasance. But the plaintiffs allege more than that—they allege that these deliberate design decisions by Roblox created the risk of harm to the minor plaintiffs who otherwise would not have been exposed to the virtual casinos”). The fact that the overwhelming majority of Roblox users are minors is central to both the allegations and the court’s conclusions. The Plaintiffs argued that Roblox, given its young audience, had a heightened duty of care, especially concerning activities like gambling, which minors cannot legally engage in. The court rejected the imposition of a heightened duty of care, but still swept aside Roblox’s argument that public policy factors should narrow its legal duty in this case. The court stated that the complaint “adequately alleges that it was foreseeable that minor users would navigate to virtual casinos and gamble away their Robux.” This foreseeability analysis played a role in the court’s decision to allow the negligence claims to proceed, with the court finding plausible Plaintiffs’ claims that the burden to monitor millions of transactions is not too great for Roblox in this instance, at least based on the allegations in the complaint as to how Roblox oversees its platform. In a footnote, the court did recognize that Roblox is in fact trying to upset the operation of the online casinos and that the online casinos are engaged in a “cat and mouse game” of hiding from Roblox, such that perhaps Roblox could successfully argue in future proceedings that it is already taking reasonable care to prevent minors from gambling at outside virtual casinos (Robox’s first amended answer outlines some of the evasive tactics of the Gambling Website Defendants and Roblox’s efforts to detect and moderate accounts that violate its policies). As the focus will now shift to whether Roblox took reasonable steps to prevent the alleged harms and whether it can be held liable under a negligence theory, Roblox may bolster its defense in its answer to the amended complaint and as the record develops through discovery. No matter how the chips fall in this case, the court’s ruling will likely spur other online gaming and metaverse platforms like Roblox to reexamine in-game currency structures and monitoring procedures to ensure they are playing their cards right when it comes to users who are minors. Roller Rink Scissors and Dips Out of Skater’s Injury Claims A California appellate court affirmed the dismissal of negligence and premises liability claims against roller rink owner Skateland Enterprises, Inc. (“Skateland”) over injury claims brought by a skater, Plaintiff Geraldine Myers (“Myers” or “Plaintiff”), with the court finding that roller skating is “inherently risky” and Plaintiff failed to show that Skateland increased the risks of injury beyond those inherent to skating. ( Myers v. Skateland Enterprises Inc. , No. B328404 (Cal. App. 2 nd Dist. Sept. 23, 2024) (unpublished)). Hence, this appeal—a “couples-only slow skate” of sorts between Skateland and Myers—is over and Skateland’s initial summary judgment award stands. Plaintiff was injured at Skateland in December 2019 during a Sunday evening public skating session after another skater clipped her arm and caused her to fall after the rink had issued a “stop skating” instruction to allow workers to remove gum from the floor. Plaintiff was wearing her own roller skates. Evidence suggested that at the time of the fall, there were around 150 skaters on the floor, and camera footage showed at least two floor guards in referee shirts in the vicinity of Plaintiff skating with the patrons and monitoring for unsafe behavior (or perhaps groups of friends skating a bit overzealously in a “ train ”); the rink also had a program director/DJ in an elevated booth who could supervise the rink and make rink-wide announcements. Testimony suggested Skateland exceeded safety standards, as industry guidelines recommend only one floor guard for every 200 skaters. Apparently, on the day of the incident, floor guards had admonished one skater after receiving a complaint about his skating that night (the man did not receive any further complaints), but later in the evening it was this same skater who bumped into Plaintiff‘s outstretched arm at a slow speed and caused her to fall. In March 2021, Myers wheeled into California Superior Court in Los Angeles and filed her complaint against Skateland and the other skater (who was not involved in the appeal), advancing negligence and premises liability claims. While Plaintiff conceded that skating is an inherent risky activity, she alleged that Skateland unreasonably increased the risks of injury by failing to properly regulate the skating floor, failing to provide trained skating supervisors, and failing to prevent a rogue skater from injuring Plaintiff. Skateland countered in its motion for summary judgment that Myers assumed the risk of injury, that the “incidental contact” between Myers and the other skater “is endemic in the activity” and that Skateland followed industry safety protocols and did nothing to increase the risk associated with roller skating. In January 2023, the trial court granted Skateland’s motion for summary judgment, finding that falling is an inherent risk of roller skating and that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to prove that Skateland did anything to unreasonably increase that risk. The trial court pointed to CCTV footage from the day in question that bolstered the defense: an adequate number of skate guards on the floor, the supposedly “reckless” skater skating in control, and depicting the incident as a “low-speed interaction.” Thus, the trial court ruled that Skateland was not liable for what is an ordinary risk of roller skating: “[B]umping into other skaters and falling is an inherent risk of roller skating, especially in a group setting....” Lacing up their quad skates, the California appellate court affirmed Skateland’s award of summary judgment and concluded the assumption of risk doctrine foreclosed Myers’ claims. The court stated that a defendant has no duty to eliminate or protect against risks inherent in a sport or recreational activity but cannot unreasonably “increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.” The court also pointed out that several states in fact have enacted statutes limiting the liability of roller rink operators for the inherent risks of skating (see e.g., New Jersey, N.J.S.A. §5:14-6: “Roller skaters and spectators are deemed to... assume the inherent risks of roller skating... [which include] injuries which result from incidental contact with other roller skaters or spectators....”). Noting that collisions between skaters in a rink are an intrinsic risk of skating that could not be prevented by more skate guards or warnings, the court found that Plaintiff’s claims do not raise a triable issue because there was no evidence that Skateland increased the inherent risks of the skating: “It is inevitable that a skater may move unexpectedly, or throw out an arm, resulting in unintended contact... and Skateland had no duty to decrease that inherent risk.” In affirming dismissal, the court added: “Short of fundamentally changing skating by encasing skaters in a mound of bubble wrap, the possibility of injury cannot be avoided as skaters turn, slow, and speed up while maneuvering around the rink, creating an inherent risk of collisions.” Having notched a win on appeal, Skateland can now take a victory lap around the oval and “ Shoot the Duck .” Though, it should be noted, that since the filing of this litigation, the Skateland Northridge location has closed and been sold to a local community organization. Contributors include Eric Zilber, Caroline E. Rimmer and Jonathan P. Mollod.