Mobile Phone Micropayments

MamaMoo_2

dalesrider wrote: »

There for Jagex are party to handling stolen goods....... :T

These companies are well aware that their systems are open to abuse. As they have failed to ensure that the bill payer has given permission.
I do not think that sending a text to the phone requesting access could be considered a secure method of ensuring they are getting hte bill payers permission.

Handling stolen goods? No. Unknowingly accepting stolen funds? Yes. Not a crime.
There're only so many checks Jagex can reasonably do, and I think that they're doing more than some companies do (years ago somebody gave my number to a subscription service. Took me a while to clock on that the ads I was receiving were costing me money to receive!)
So I think that it's good that Jagex send a text and require confirmation for every single transaction (it's not simply a case of authorising once. Each transaction requires validation by text)
The fact is, had the OP not given her son unfettered access to her phone, this would not have happened.
Many websites use an identical system of "we text, you reply" for mobile phone payments, or a system of "you send a text from the phone to prove permission" (ie with those charity donation texts)
If this was a dodgy system, it wouldn't be used by so many companies and charities without intervention from the powers that be.

amuzia

This artical on a site called crunchynutter might be of interest to your case. it outlines the code of practice surrounding premium rate services that may be used by under 16

The code of practice by which all premium rate services companies must abide by has a number of sections that protect children from being exploited by using any of these services. Unfortunately not enough is being done to clamp down on companies that offer premium rate services to discriminate on who can and cannot use their services. It is my opinion that Phone Pay Plus needs to get tougher where children and vulnerable people are involved in the use of the a premium service that they should not be using. The first section protecting children is 2.3.9 which says “Premium rate services must not directly appeal to children to purchase products or take advantage of children’s potential credulity, lack of experience or sense of loyalty”. Many companies offering premium rate services break this rule by not asking or confirming that the person playing the game is over 16 years of age according the code of practice. This should be part of the first text message sent which must be free of charge, and must also state the cost of receiving subsequent text messages.
The next section protecting children is 2.3.12(b) which says “Services aimed at, or which should have been expected to be particularly attractive to children, must terminate immediately when a maximum of £2.56 plus VAT per call, or in the case of a subscription service a maximum of £2.56 plus VAT per month, has been spent”. An example of a service that is particularly attractive to children is those quiz competitions that say you can win a an iPhone or iPad. We know that children are becoming more and more attracted to all these latest gadgets and are likely to be sucked into playing these premium rate quiz competitions. It is my opinion that premium rate services under this rule must make any refunds immediately and without prejudice if a parent or guardian can claim that the phone to which a premium rate charge was made belongs to a child and exceeded £2.56 plus VAT.



I hope this is of some help, i had a similar issue but with my home phone a couple of years back.

You cannot be expected to police your children 100% of the time, I do wonder how some of the posters who expect you to do this would have felt if their parents sat on their coat tails when they were a teenage, I'm sure if it was me i would have resented this wholeheartedly.

OlliesDad

amuzia wrote: »

You cannot be expected to police your children 100% of the time, I do wonder how some of the posters who expect you to do this would have felt if their parents sat on their coat tails when they were a teenage, I'm sure if it was me i would have resented this wholeheartedly.

I don't think anyone has suggested this, however what has been said is that if this does happen the parent/child needs to take responsibility.

photome

Any news on the outcome

FWIW I dont see why they should refund as the son adhered to their t and c

"If you are under 18, by using our website you are representing (i.e. making a promise) that you have consent from your parents/guardian to use Jagex Products in accordance with our terms and conditions and privacy policy. We may Stop any account if we are not satisfied that such consent has been given."

My son did not have permission

ie he made a promise that he had consent...he didnt so that makes him liable..doesnt it?

Lifeforms

Is it definitely linked to RuneScape? Or to other mini games Jagex offer, or an external site linked to the playing of RuneScape? *Edited to add, see the reference to Solomons General store. Yeah this came in after the time I stopped playing, but didn't realise it was pay to gain. Honestly it's junk customisation as well.
Interestingly, depending on when the payments were made:
http://services.runescape.com/m=news/solomons-general-store-end-of-year-sale

Granted I've not played RuneScape for quite some time, but generally in game selling is against the rules, highly frowned upon, and actively punished (! not really, but according to their site it is). There is a monthly sub option for the game itself. Other games on the Jagex site can be "bought" as well.

I will say however if you can get your sons account put into debt, it will be suspended until that debt is paid off, which you might find if it was all for one RuneScape account, could hit harder than physically taking stuff away. Especially if it were a decent account.

Be aware, one blocked account doesn't solve the problem, as it's far too easy to sign up for another account/buy/trade accounts to play again.

It's quite interesting everyones stances on this, so could the OP update when they have information.

Does make me wanna go find my account however and see when I last played

salen40

This situation still remains unresolved. I am still in communication with Jagex and my Mobile Phone provider to get a satisfactory outcome. Interestingly enough, since this happened there is now a block on the phone to the Jagex (runescape acct) something which I thought had been applied several months ago at my request to my MP provider. It looks like they didn't apply the block when requested by myself and so they are looking into this from their end and have agreed that if they are at fault, for not applying the block, then they will cancel the bill. Ironically enough, I cannot cancel the monthly subscription to Jagex, set up through the phone, as I cannot bypass the block to cancel it.........perhaps I can do it online though. I will still prepared to pursue Jagex if necessary if only to raise more awareness of this type of exploitation.

I appreciate all the posts people have made on here regarding this and I hope it highlights the dangers to other unsuspecting parents out there. I still however feel that the bottom line is that young people should not be allowed to be exploited (see post by Amuzia) and wonder how many times this will happen to others before it is taken in hand.

On another note, my son has paid me back £110 (Birthday money) which I am holding on to for now pending the outcome. I will post updates as and when they happen

salen40

It is definitely a Runescape account. Jagex have mentioned putting the account into debt but I don't know how or what use this can do as the bill is outstanding with my mobile provider not Jagex

salen40

Thank you for your post, I will look into it in more depth. I think you have hit the nail on the head and it all comes down to under 16's being exploited to easily. Even if I don't get a satisfactory outcome, I hope that I can make enough noise and fuss about this for someone to sit up and take notice in the future.