facebook ingame purchase!!! what the hell is that??

Tony5101

NFH wrote: »

Premium texts and the problem described by the OP have everything in common.

When acquiring a SIM card (contract or prepaid), the customer should be asked whether or not they want to allow non-telecoms third parties to charge services to their account.

And in the case of Facebook (which is what this thread is all about!), that's exactly what happens. You opt in to have these charges billed to your telecoms account.
In this thread, the consumer made a bad choice, they now know what they did, and will be rectifying the situation.
You seem to have a huge problem with people being given a choice, and an even bigger problem with people having an opinion that differs to yours.

peachyprice

NFH wrote: »

Premium texts and the problem described by the OP have everything in common.

When acquiring a SIM card (contract or prepaid), the customer should be asked whether or not they want to allow non-telecoms third parties to charge services to their account. Most consumers would decline this option, given that they have a reasonable expectation that only telecommunications charges will be charged to their account.

So you believe that when people get a new SIM they need to be asked whether they are ever going to want to allow non-telecoms charges to that SIM and if they answer no, that's it, they won't be ever able to do it?

Do you really think the majority of people need protecting from themselves that much?

NFH

Tony5101 wrote: »

And in the case of Facebook (which is what this thread is all about!), that's exactly what happens. You opt in to have these charges billed to your telecoms account.

You have made an incorrect assumption that the bill payer and the user are the same person; there are many instances where this is not the case. The bill payer should be able to opt out of all non-telecoms charges being added to the bill, or better still there should be an opt-in system before such charges are permitted.

WTFH

How should the bill payer be contacted to know if they agree to opt in?
How long should they be given to respond?

NFH

WTFH wrote: »

How should the bill payer be contacted to know if they agree to opt in?
How long should they be given to respond?

It should use a similar mechanism to age verification for access to adult content. When proving one's age to a network, one should be invited to opt in to two services - adult content and third party charges. Given that most victims of third party charges are children who don't understand and/or cannot afford these charges, it would be reasonable to restrict such services to adults who specifically want to pay such charges.

WTFH

I don't think you understand how these charges work. They do not all come from one source. Each game manufacturer would have to provide their own opt-in, and when a new one comes along, that would have to be agreed too.
Why should children not be allowed to play games?

NFH

WTFH wrote: »

I don't think you understand how these charges work. They do not all come from one source. Each game manufacturer would have to provide their own opt-in, and when a new one comes along, that would have to be agreed too.
Why should children not be allowed to play games?

No, I'm not suggesting a separate opt-in for each game. I'm suggesting that there should be a blanket opt-in at the network level. If the bill payer does not opt in, then the network should refuse all third party charges, regardless of their source.

I never said that children should not be allowed to play games. However, there is no good reason for children to charge amounts levied by third parties to the telecoms account of the inserted SIM card. If they wish to make in-game purchases, then they can make an express and informed decision to do so by asking a parent for a credit card etc rather than the app facilitating a frivolous decision to do so.

alanwsg

The FTC describe the way Apple manage in-app purchases as "sneaky" ....

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/app-surprise-how-lose-hundreds-15-minutes