You may have seen public outcry against Disney in 2024 for attempting to force arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit. Disney was being sued by the spouse of a doctor who died from an allergic reaction at one of its restaurants. Because the decedent’s spouse had previously made a Disney+ account and agreed to the Terms & Conditions, Disney claimed that the decedent’s spouse had agreed to resolve any disputes via private arbitration, waiving their right to a public lawsuit. Of course, Disney quickly faced widespread backlash and withdrew their motion to compel arbitration.   

Now, Discord is pulling the same move in our wrongful death lawsuit against the platform. Its conduct here is especially disturbing because this case centers on the death of a child. 

Discord is responsible for the death of Jay Taylor, the 13-year-old child of our clients. Yet Discord claims that because Jay had accepted Terms & Conditions, which included a forced arbitration clause, his parents have no right to sue in civil court on the Estate’s behalf and should instead handle it through private arbitration.  

In arbitration, proceedings are private rather than public, there’s limited discovery, and no opportunity to appeal. Companies frequently prefer arbitration over civil litigation, because it keeps disputes out of the public eye. Additionally, arbitrators tend to favor corporations over private litigants. This is often the case because corporations are frequent users of arbitration while private litigants are one-time users. Discovery is often strictly limited, making it harder for private litigants to access vital corporate documents. Further, arbitration awards are nearly impossible to appeal, even if the arbitrator makes an obvious error of law.   

Tech companies have historically used Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to evade all liability for any harms they cause. Our firm pioneered the use of product liability theory against a tech platform in 2017 in Herrick v. Grindr, and several cases over the years have overcome Big Tech’s insistence on evading liability via Section 230 protections. 

Discord is trying what no other tech defendant has yet dared: to shuffle the parents of a dead child out of court and into a secret closed-door arbitration. 

We see this as Big Tech’s newest tactic to evade liability.

The Case

We represent Colby and Leslie Taylor, who lost their 13 year-old son Jay Taylor to suicide.  

Jay was a Trans child who went online seeking community, and instead was introduced to 764, a sadistic child abuse sex cult that was born on and thrives on one and only platform: Discord. Discord knew about and did nothing to stop 764 members from using the platform to find new victims to coerce into horrific acts including self-mutilation, animal mutilation/harm and live-streaming suicide.   

Jay had posted in a Discord server about crafting, seeking new gay or Trans friends, and within hours, he was pushed into livestreaming his own suicide.  

We filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the Taylors in February 2026. Discord has an intentional hands-off approach to moderating servers with less than 200 employees, which must rely on server owners and community moderators to define and enforce norms of behavior. Discord does not verify age or identity either, while it specifically assures parents that the app is designed to keep children safe.  

Long before Jay’s death, Discord knew how 764 was using and thriving on its platform, making Discord responsible for product liability, negligence, and trafficking, as our complaint outlines. 

Our Opposition to Discord’s Attempt to Compel Arbitration

Last month, we filed our opposition to Discord’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, arguing Discord had failed in its motion on several levels. 

First, Discord failed to establish the existence of any valid agreement between Jay and Discord showing Jay ever agreed to the Terms of Service (TOS) or arbitration clause. There was no box to check signaling Jay understood the TOS – only, as Discord indicated to the courts, small writing under a box that prompts the user to create a username, that says, “By registering, you agree to Discord’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.” No box to click, no pop-up agreement to scroll through. Discord provided no actual proof of a contract between Jay and Discord, and no receipt of an agreement that Jay would have received.  

And even if Discord had shown an agreement with Jay existed, Jay was a minor at the time of signing up – by Discord’s own admission, Jay was 10 or 11 years old when he first created an account. Specific laws depend on jurisdiction, but generally, any contract a minor signs is considered “legally voidable.” This means the minor has the legal right to cancel, or “disaffirm,” the contract at any point before turning 18 or shortly after. As we argue, any contract that existed between Jay and Discord, if any, was disaffirmed at 3 moments: 1) Jay’s death, at age 13, 2) the filing of our lawsuit against Discord, and 3) when Jay’s dad, Colby Taylor, expressly disaffirmed any contracts between Jay and Discord in a declaration submitted to the court.  

Additionally, Discord breached its own TOS, rendering the TOS unenforceable. Discord’s TOS explicitly states a “zero-tolerance policy” for content that endangers or sexualizes children and that Discord is built on safety. These were false representations, given that Discord knew (no later than mid-2021) that a murderous child abuse cult was proliferating on its platform, putting children in danger.  

Congress has already recognized that certain kinds of disputes should not be handled in arbitration. The End Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) renders arbitration agreements invalid and unenforceable in cases involving sexual assault or harassment. 764 is a neo-Nazi child sexual exploitation cult that coerces kids into sending nude images and videos, livestreaming sex performances, and self-mutilation of genitals. As Jay was obeying the suicide instructions given to him by 764 members, he was told to get naked, because it was “hotter.” In this way, 764’s conduct, which was enabled and facilitated by Discord, was not only murderous but sexually assaultive – and the EFAA would apply here.  

Finally, even if Jay had agreed to arbitration to settle disputes, and that contract would be considered valid, it wasn’t signed by the plaintiffs, Colby and Leslie Taylor. Colby and Leslie Taylor have wrongful death claims not only on behalf of the Estate of Jay Taylor, but on their own behalf as well. They bring their individual claims, requiring proof of facts that would not be resolved in any arbitration proceeding. While Discord is hoping that the Estate’s claims will be arbitrated, they want a stay (or, delay) on the parents’ individual claims until after arbitration is over. In this way, Discord wants to hold a grieving mother and father in legal limbo indefinitely, unable to pursue justice in the only forum they have a right to be heard.  

Why the decision on forced arbitration matters

Think about it – how many times have you checked a box, or even scrolled past a disclosure, that said “I understand and agree to the Terms & Conditions” without reading it? Should you be bound by that contract for the rest of your life and your loved ones’ lives? Even in the most heartbreaking and unforeseeable circumstances?  

If the courts allow Discord to get away with this egregious abuse of contract law, then they’re only paving the way for other tech companies to get cases dismissed for the same reason. Nearly every online platform requires users, including children, to agree to TOS to sign up. If those agreements can be used to keep grieving families from having their day in court, then forced arbitration becomes yet another shield allowing tech companies to avoid public accountability for releasing dangerous products into the world.