Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purchases

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Garen Meguerian and a team of lawyers are taking Apple to task for 'inducing' children to spend hundreds of dollars of their parents' money on in-app game purchases. Meguerian filed a class-action lawsuit this week in California, acknowledging that Apple has already addressed the problem, but saying that the company continues to unfairly profit from sales of virtual 'smurfberries' and 'fish bucks.' The issue at hand is related to games that rely on a 'freemium' business model, giving away the game for free on the App Store and relying on in-app purchases of virtual currency, extra levels, or other add-ons as a revenue stream."

Comments

Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?

Re:Bad parenting

[joh]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?

The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.

I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.

Re:Bad parenting

[scot4875]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.

What the fuck is wrong with you "parents are being neglectful" people?

--Jeremy

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

So, what you are saying is that the consumer should be excused from normal diligence before purchasing an iOS device?

Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?

If you have to perform "due diligence" just to buy a consumer product to make sure it's not going to rip you off, you should probably scratch that company off the list of companies you'll do business with.

I'm not trying to pick on Apple here. So many corporations have broken trust with their customers that the only solution is to have the government place a heavy regulatory foot on their necks which doesn't get removed until the company proves it's not going to rip off consumers. Considering the complex nature of computer software, and the labyrinthine complexity of end user licenses and agreements, there is no practical way that any individual consumer can protect himself. It's got to be done by someone who has the same legal and financial power as the company. The only entity that fits that bill is the government.

The non-existent "free market" has already shown its insufficiency in protecting consumers.

Although I do find this business model stupid

[Derekloffin]

I can't really say Apple is doing anything wrong here. They have not only the option to disable said purchases available, they also went the extra step of modifying their password handling. Seems just like another case of stupid parenting to me.

parents

[fermion]

I don't normally say this, but one must really ask why the parents need to buy kids these things or why parents need to let kids buy things in games. If a parent is responsible enough to get the money to buy an iToy, then makes a decision to buy an iGame, then makes the decision to provide the kids to the credit cards to buy iJunk, Why is it Apple fault that the parents then get a huge iBill. You don't see McDonald's getting sued because parents take their kids to the store and buy them McPoison. The kids were induced by propaganda just like in the case of Apple.

It was like the uproar over Beavis and Butthead many years ago. Even though parents were evidently responsible enough to get a tv, pay the electricity and the cable bill, they were not deemed responsible enough to monitor what the kids watched. Therefor MTV got in trouble when Beavis and Butthead tortured animals of set them afire. Evidently the kids would do the same and it was TV, not the parents fault.

So yes children are impressionable. Parents have to set limits on what kids are and are not able to do. But when parent make an explicitly decision to allow kids access to something, either by driving them there, or ordering a product, or giving access to a credit card, or whatever, it is no longer the companies fault. We saw this when kids were racking up huge phone and texting bills. I don't know what the issue was. If the kid can't use the phone, they don't get one, or have a prepaid.

Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise!

[ackthpt]

Would you like to buy a cookie for your pet?

o_o

It's a really good cookie!

O_o

With chocolate and stuff!

O_O

Your pet will wuv oo!

@_@

You bought a cookie!
It was nummy!
Your pet wuvs oo!
 
Buy another?

@_@

Yay! Your pet weally, weally wuvs oo!

[repeat n times]

Thanks for buying all the cookies for your very happy pet!
Charging $483.75 to account.

+_+