Mobile Phone Micropayments

shocky_2

salen40 wrote: »

Does anyone know or think that Jagex may have got passed the bar on my phone by effectively coming through the back door and quite clearly bypassing parental consent?

Jagex never got past the bar in the first place because your son didn't have authority to make the purchase. My understanding is that the bar only applies to purchases in an app rather than purchases by text message so I'm not sure if this particular bit helps.

The legal analysis goes something like this. When your money is used by someone who doesn't have authority to use that money (e.g. your son), you are entitled to get that money back from third parties (e.g. Jagex) under the law of restitution and unjust enrichment.

There are some defences to restitutionary claims. Another poster gave the example of a thief who bought something from a local shop. The shop could claim the defence called "bona fide purchaser" which applies where you hand over something tangible and don't know that the person didn't have authority to make the transaction.

However, Jagex cannot claim this defence because they didn't hand over anything tangible. Unlike the shopkeeper they are not in a worse position due to the transaction. Runescape credits do not have a real value and can simply be removed from your son's account. Therefore I think Jagex are legally obliged to refund the money.

If they refunded the money then Jagex would have a theoretical claim against your son for pretending that he had authority to make the transaction when he did not, but realistically Jagex are never going to bring a claim like that.

shocky_2

Here is some wording that you can use in an email to Jagex if you think its helpful. Remember that this will result in your son's account being closed so he may prefer just to repay the money!

---

Hi,

Thank you for your email dated xxx. I confirm that I have spoken to my mobile phone company who are unable to reverse the payment.

As you are aware, my son did not have authority to use my money to buy credits from you. I retained my legal interest in the money at all times. Similarly, I did not agree to your terms and condition and thus is no contract between us. I am now calling on you to return my money.

I have taken legal advice and understand that English laws protect the rights of people whose money is spent without their authority. Jagex has been enriched in the sum of £150 and, under the law of restitution, I am entitled to the return of that money. Please return it immediately.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that you will be refunding the money within 14 days. If you do not provide this confirmation, then I am prepared to bring proceedings against you in the county court without further notice.

Kind regards,

MamaMoo_2

youngsolicitor wrote: »

Here is some wording that you can use in an email to Jagex if you think its helpful. Remember that this will result in your son's account being closed so he may prefer just to repay the money!

---

Hi,

Thank you for your email dated xxx. I confirm that I have spoken to my mobile phone company who are unable to reverse the payment.

As you are aware, my son did not have authority to use my money to buy credits from you. I retained my legal interest in the money at all times. Similarly, I did not agree to your terms and condition and thus is no contract between us. I am now calling on you to return my money.

I have taken legal advice and understand that English laws protect the rights of people whose money is spent without their authority. Jagex has been enriched in the sum of £150 and, under the law of restitution, I am entitled to the return of that money. Please return it immediately.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that you will be refunding the money within 14 days. If you do not provide this confirmation, then I am prepared to bring proceedings against you in the county court without further notice.

Kind regards,

Surely she has to claim the money back from her son, not Jagex?
As in my earlier example of stealing cash and spending it in a supermarket.
Surely OP's negligence is her own fault, not that of Jagex?

dalesrider

Have you looked at Jagex T/C Note section 5 and under age users.

Personally I would try Ofcom on this to see what they have to say. It falls under their remit on companies charging via mobile

shocky_2

MamaMoo wrote: »

Surely she has to claim the money back from her son, not Jagex?
As in my earlier example of stealing cash and spending it in a supermarket.
Surely OP's negligence is her own fault, not that of Jagex?

Have a read of the post just above. When money is spent without authority, the owner of that money has a claim to get the money back. The supermarket would have a defence to the claim because they provided something in return for the money and would lose out if they had to return it, this is called the "bona fide purchaser" purchase.

The difference is that Jagex did not provide anything of value. Jagex would only have a defence if the transaction permanently changed their position. But all they did was change a few numbers in a database, that can easily be reversed so they don't have a defence to a claim by the Op to get her money back.

I don't think you can say that the Op was negligent. She tried to put a bar on phone purchases which is more than most people do. This is what happens when Jagex allow people to pay £150+ by text message without doing anything to verify their identity.

MamaMoo_2

youngsolicitor wrote: »

Have a read of the post just above. When money is spent without authority, the owner of that money has a claim to get the money back. The supermarket would have a defence to the claim because they provided something in return for the money and would lose out if they had to return it, this is called the "bona fide purchaser" purchase.

The difference is that Jagex did not provide anything of value. Jagex would only have a defence if the transaction permanently changed their position. But all they did was change a few numbers in a database, that can easily be reversed so they don't have a defence to a claim by the Op to get her money back.

I don't think you can say that the Op was negligent. She tried to put a bar on phone purchases which is more than most people do. This is what happens when Jagex allow people to pay £150+ by text message without doing anything to verify their identity.

Whilst it can be reversed, why should they have to? As far as they are concerned, they verified that the mobile number that was input belonged to the user, OP's son, by texting the phone and requiring a reply.
With regards to making it too easy etc, it's no easier, really, than stealing a debit card and topping your phone up by however much. In this situation, also, the OP could not claim the money back via her bank as she would be deemed to be negligent with her card.
Of course we can say the OP was negligent with we phone, there was no passcode lock etc on there. This is why children should not be allowed access to a post-pay phone. A 13 year old child, if requiring access to a mobile phone, should have his own, or a family one which is prepay only. In this case, OP's son had unsupervised access to a phone, which he used to make unauthorised payments. This is not Jagex's issue, it's the OP's son.
I find it ridiculous that OP is trying to claw back money from an innocent 3rd party. I think she and her son should shoulder the costs as it was down to his thievery and her negligent behaviour that they are in this position. Why should Jagex be down £150.
Also, as a parent, should the OP not be monitoring her son's Internet usage and looking at the T&C's if websites he's using so she can check them?!

shocky_2

MamaMoo wrote: »

Whilst it can be reversed, why should they have to? As far as they are concerned, they verified that the mobile number that was input belonged to the user, OP's son, by texting the phone and requiring a reply.
With regards to making it too easy etc, it's no easier, really, than stealing a debit card and topping your phone up by however much. In this situation, also, the OP could not claim the money back via her bank as she would be deemed to be negligent with her card.

With a debit card I think the Op would get a refund. Banks still refund even if people are very negligent - for example if you lose your card, let the waiter take your card out of sight at a restaurant or shop online without anti-virus software you will still get refunded.

This is why most online merchants now protect themselves from chargebacks by requiring an extra layer of security like "verified by visa", meaning you have to know a password as well as the card details. In real life you would have to provide a PIN or signature. It is also why mobile phone companies impose a limit on online or phone top-ups without verification. For example, the max you can top up just with a debit/credit card on O2 is £40.

Jagex did not impose any checks whatsoever beyond a text message. That is understandable for a transation of £10 but not for a transaction for £150+. They know their system has a very high risk of fraud and they willingly take that risk.

Of course we can say the OP was negligent with we phone, there was no passcode lock etc on there. This is why children should not be allowed access to a post-pay phone. A 13 year old child, if requiring access to a mobile phone, should have his own, or a family one which is prepay only. In this case, OP's son had unsupervised access to a phone, which he used to make unauthorised payments. This is not Jagex's issue, it's the OP's son.
I find it ridiculous that OP is trying to claw back money from an innocent 3rd party. I think she and her son should shoulder the costs as it was down to his thievery and her negligent behaviour that they are in this position. Why should Jagex be down £150.

Jagex won't be down £150. They are not losing anything here. They can simply reverse the transaction by changing a few numbers in a database. Its not like a shop which handed over a product.

Also, as a parent, should the OP not be monitoring her son's Internet usage and looking at the T&C's if websites he's using so she can check them?!

I understand where you are coming from - but I don't think this is realistic. You seem to suggest that teenagers should not have contract phones, should not access the internet unsupervised and their parents should read the T&C of every website they visit.

MamaMoo_2

youngsolicitor wrote: »

With a debit card I think the Op would get a refund. Banks still refund even if people are very negligent - for example if you lose your card, let the waiter take your card out of sight at a restaurant or shop online without anti-virus software you will still get refunded.

This is why most online merchants now protect themselves from chargebacks by requiring an extra layer of security like "verified by visa", meaning you have to know a password as well as the card details. In real life you would have to provide a PIN or signature. It is also why mobile phone companies impose a limit on online or phone top-ups without verification. For example, the max you can top up just with a debit/credit card on O2 is £40.

Jagex did not impose any checks whatsoever beyond a text message. That is understandable for a transation of £10 but not for a transaction for £150+. They know their system has a very high risk of fraud and they willingly take that risk.



Jagex won't be down £150. They are not losing anything here. They can simply reverse the transaction by changing a few numbers in a database. Its not like a shop which handed over a product.



You seem to suggest that teenagers should not have contract phones, should not access the internet unsupervised and their parents should read the T&C of every website they visit. This is not realistic.

You are very much mistaken about banks and their refund processes I'm afraid. In a case like this (card not left protected, fraud done by family member because card was easily accessible etc, and we'll assume cardholder handed over the PIN as a similarity to OP not having a PIN on her phone) the bank would not refund.

Also, you can too up £30 with a debit card on O2 every 24 hours, with a maximum debit card too up of £100 per month.
Similarly, OP's son did not do a single transaction, there were many small transactions of between £3 and £14 iirc.

One would assume that their system actually has a very *small* risk of fraud. If someone is using a stolen mobile, the likelihood is it will be reported as stolen very quickly. Also, many mobiles have credit limits which will be reached fairly quickly if someone starts using a phone like this. (I have mine set to £60, plus I also have insurance that will cover me for calls made if my phone is stolen)

And damn right I'm saying that A CHILD should not be given a contract phone without credit limits etc in place, if they're given one at all. What's wrong with PAYG?
Also, no, they shouldn't have unsupervised access to the Internet. If the OP is allowing her child to access websites with subscription services etc, it's the OP's job to know about it. 10 minutes here and there to check Internet history could have saved the OP £150. Ignorance or laziness is no defence. I have two brothers, 18 & 14, both with PAYG phones, both have their browsing monitored. It's not hard to do, and has no adverse impact on them.

If you're going to give your child access to credit and access to subscription sites, don't blame the sites, blame yourself!

shocky_2

MamaMoo wrote: »

You are very much mistaken about banks and their refund processes I'm afraid. In a case like this (card not left protected, fraud done by family member because card was easily accessible etc, and we'll assume cardholder handed over the PIN as a similarity to OP not having a PIN on her phone) the bank would not refund.

My understanding is that the banks generally only refuse a refund if you told someone else your PIN. You do not need the PIN to enter your details on a text message. If the card was accessible that doesn't matter: one of the most common causes of credit card fraud is cloning, yet it is still common practice for people to let waiters take their card at restaurants and the banks don't refuse to refund on that basis.

Also, many mobiles have credit limits which will be reached fairly quickly if someone starts using a phone like this. (I have mine set to £60, plus I also have insurance that will cover me for calls made if my phone is stolen)

And damn right I'm saying that A CHILD should not be given a contract phone without credit limits etc in place, if they're given one at all. What's wrong with PAYG?
Also, no, they shouldn't have unsupervised access to the Internet. If the OP is allowing her child to access websites with subscription services etc, it's the OP's job to know about it. 10 minutes here and there to check Internet history could have saved the OP £150. Ignorance or laziness is no defence. I have two brothers, 18 & 14, both with PAYG phones, both have their browsing monitored. It's not hard to do, and has no adverse impact on them.

The Op did put a credit limit in place. It did not stop the SMS charges - it seems this kind of charge is different to a contract limit. Admittedly PAYG would stop this but PAYG is far more expensive for heavy mobile users like most teens.

On the internet issue, your kids can simply delete their browsing history or use the "private mode" which is built into modern internet browsers. Unless you literally stand over their shoulder every time they use a computer I don't see how you can monitor everything a teenager does online. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

MamaMoo_2

youngsolicitor wrote: »

My understanding is that the banks generally only refuse a refund if you told someone else your PIN. You do not need the PIN to enter your details on a text message. If the card was accessible that doesn't matter: one of the most common causes of credit card fraud is cloning, yet it is still common practice for people to let waiters take their card at restaurants and the banks don't refuse to refund on that basis.



The Op did put a credit limit in place. It did not stop the SMS charges - it seems this kind of charge is different to a contract limit. Admittedly PAYG would stop this but PAYG is far more expensive for heavy mobile users like most teens.

On the internet issue, your kids can simply delete their browsing history or use the "private mode" which is built into modern internet browsers. Unless you literally stand over their shoulder every time they use a computer I don't see how you can monitor everything a teenager does online. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The OP didn't put a credit limit in place, had this happened, the phone would cut off when the limit was reached, as mine is.
PAYG may be more expensive, but there are many good value packages out there. There is a reason contract phones are not available to be taken on by a child under 18. If their parents choose to take one on for them, then use a network like T-mobile who have a credit limit, after which the phone can be topped up, or accept the consequences. Also, mobile phones are a privilege, not a right!
I had one from the age of 11. I never abused it, always bought my own credit with money I earned and used it sensibly. And now with two children of my own, when they are old enough for mobiles they will have a PAYG that they fund themselves.

The OP's son would have needed a PIN had she bothered to put one in place. The OP hadn't, therefore, his ability to access it was the OP's fault for being negligent ie not taking appropriate steps to protect her phone. Banks will not refund if you do not take appropriate steps to prevent fraud. (I'd say the debit card equivalent of a mobile not being passcode protected, as a debit card can't not have a PIN, would be writing your PIN on the card or on paper kept near the card)

There are plenty of ways to monitor Internet history. Keystroke loggers/screenshot programmes, delete the private browsing option from the browser etc, or just tell your child they will be punished if they delete their history.

If a parent will not take appropriate measures to safeguard browsing, then they should not let their child on the Internet. Simple.