Mobile bill shock through kids in-app purchases

StephenBaker

My 6yo spent £500 on smurfs life iTunes were really good but I spoke to a lady in America
They refunded full amount because they said it all happened in a 15 minute window they also helped me change all of my settings
Any childrens game that has £70 items for sale must expect mistakes to happen just be very careful

securityguy

Movement from the US: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21585378

Fire_Fox

Libertarianus wrote: »

Unless the account holder in person or an authorised person is positively identified before a debt is incurred, the attribution of the debt is arbitrary and no different from a thief using a stolen credit card to commit fraud. No honest trader would expect a non-vulnerable adult to rack up insane levels of debt on a stupid game. Even casinos have specific staff delegated to watch gamblers and intervene where appropriate, even though not legally obliged so to do. The current free-for-all is merely an immoral licence to print money.

Bank would not see it that way: they refund money stolen from your account by a thief providing you took reasonable precautions and have a crime reference number. They generally do not refund money you lost if you admit you were careless and let the perpetrator have your PIN or other security information. Effectively that is what happened with these Apple games, parents failing to secure their own payment details and failing to supervise their children.

Of course non vulnerable adults throw money down the toilet, look how many play the lottery, bingo or otherwise gamble in a 'recreational' fashion. Plenty also purchase credits for pointless Facebook activities or p0rn websites. It's not debt if it's paid for at the time, now is it?

Who should a parent be complaining to and blaming if their tween uses their Sony laptop running Microsoft Windows to log onto a p0rn site that charges and the parents have used before then racked up a hefty bill watching the pretty ladies? Or uses their Amazon Kindle to log onto the Bet Victor site and gamble away a tidy sum on a elderly donkey in the 3.30 at Epsom? What, fundamentally, is the difference between an app and a website?

Wickedkitten

Libertarianus wrote: »

"Or uses their Amazon Kindle to log onto the Bet Victor site and gamble away a tidy sum on a elderly donkey in the 3.30 at Epsom?"

This sentence sums the "App" debt situation up neatly. "App debts" are not incurred in the purchase of tangible goods, but are mere "e" (ephemeral?) transactions of a purely gaming nature.

Gambling "debts" are not enforceable in the courts, and bookmakers are regulated by the various gaming Acts.

I believe you will find that Apple is now refunding such "App debts" due to class action in the US.

They are refunding yes, but only if you can actually prove that a minor did it and the parent didn't provide them with the password.

Libertarianus

Wickedkitten wrote: »

They are refunding yes, but only if you can actually prove that a minor did it and the parent didn't provide them with the password.

Check out the terms of the following upcoming action (unopposed by Apple):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE APPLE IN-APP PURCHASE LITIGATION Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates to:All Actions
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT;CERTIFICATION OFSETTLEMENT CLASS; ANDAPPROVAL OF FORM ANDCONTENT OF PROPOSEDNOTICE
Date: March 1, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Court: Courtroom 4, 5th Floor Judge:Hon. Edward J. Davila
Case5:11-cv-01758-EJD Document93 Filed02/22/13 Page1 of 26

Unfortunately, this is applicable in the US only.

Proof in a civil action in this country usually consists of a sworn statement of the facts. If you make a statement that the minor made the "In-App" purchase and that you did not authorise their use of your password then this will be sufficient proof.

Wickedkitten

Libertarianus wrote: »

Check out the terms of the following upcoming action (unopposed by Apple):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE APPLE IN-APP PURCHASE LITIGATION Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates to:All Actions
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT;CERTIFICATION OFSETTLEMENT CLASS; ANDAPPROVAL OF FORM ANDCONTENT OF PROPOSEDNOTICE
Date: March 1, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Court: Courtroom 4, 5th Floor Judge:Hon. Edward J. Davila
Case5:11-cv-01758-EJD Document93 Filed02/22/13 Page1 of 26

Unfortunately, this is applicable in the US only.

Proof in a civil action in this country usually consists of a sworn statement of the facts. If you make a statement that the minor made the "In-App" purchase and that you did not authorise their use of your password then this will be sufficient proof.

They might take that as given for anyone that is only requesting $5, but they will still have to submit a claim and for people requesting more, they have to fill out a more detailed one and then these will be verified.

supremetwo

Apple and others with these high charges for children's games are Rogue Traders.

Fire_Fox

Note the proximity to a clear list of in app purchases to the 'free' clicky for downloading the game. Not exactly hidden away in the small print, is it?

Fire_Fox

Excellent article walking you through iPhone security, almost all the techniques work even if you have the latest operating system
http://www.mcafee.com/uk/resources/white-papers/foundstone/wp-top-10-iphone-security-tips.pdf

jaibaby

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Excellent article walking you through iPhone security, almost all the techniques work even if you have the latest operating system
http://www.mcafee.com/uk/resources/white-papers/foundstone/wp-top-10-iphone-security-tips.pdf

You can scream it until you're blue in the face - they still won't listen! Maybe Apple & the other makers of smartphones / tablets etc need to make their devices Dummy-proof