Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Allows Class-Action Suit Against Apple Over In-App Purchases
suraj.sun writes "An iPhone-owner whose daughter downloaded $200 worth of 'Zombie Toxin' and 'Gems' through in-app purchases on his iPhone has been allowed to pursue a class action suit against Apple for compensation of up to $5m. Garen Meguerian of Pennsylvania launched the class-action case against Apple in April 2011 after he discovered that his nine-year-old daughter had been draining his credit card account through in-app purchases on 'free' games including Zombie Cafe and Treasure Story. This month, Judge Edward J Davila in San Jose District Federal Court has allowed the case to go to trial, rejecting Apple's claim that the case should be dismissed. Meguerian claimed that Apple was unfairly targeting children by allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases. He describes games that are free to play but require purchases of virtual goods to progress as 'bait apps' and says they should not be aimed at children."
I thought that to confirm any in-app purchase, you had to re-enter your password for your Apple ID.
Is this not the case with some apps?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's what most people will get - coupons for future app purchases. The lawyers, of course will get plenty of cash.
Apple is not the one "selling" the apps and then charging with IAP, the software developers are.
It also happens in Facebook, and desktop, heck.... Valve has been doing it for a while with Team Fortress 2.
So why go after Apple?
Don't take me wrong, I really hope this case goes somewhere. I hate the Free2Play model where they take advantage of ignorant kids or people with compulsive behaviors. I just feel this lawsuit is miss-directed, Zynga and it's peers are the ones that should be targeted.
I will not oppose, though, if Apple decides or is forced to remove "consumable" IAP from the app store, or force apps that require them to charge an up-front fee that removes the visibility advantage these pocket predators have by being free up-front.
The guy wants 5 million dollars because his daughter spent $200? If I had done that I would've lost use of the iPhone and would have to mow lots of lawns to pay them back. Whatever happened to parenting?
I don't think you understand what a game is if you think something that requires infinite in-game purchases to persist for the user is a game.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Apple moving from underage workers to underage customers.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
He describes games that are free to play but require purchases of virtual goods to progress as 'bait apps' and says they should not be aimed at children."
I agree completely. However, I think it's a parent's responsibility to ensure apps their children use are suitable. If this parent did not do this then that's their fault. I am very conscious of what apps my children use and I vet them all.
Apple is not responsible for what your children do - you are.
Enjoy your Farmville "game," friend.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On the one hand I think parents should police what their kids are doing. But is it required for them to play every game themselves and make sure it isn't one can easily charge you money? Answer that for yourself but don't be too knee-jerk about how nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore.
On the other hand I hate these "bait"/"Freeium" apps that have taken over. They are a blight on the gaming world imho. Some people like getting something for free. I'd rather pay a little and know thats the final amount and get a finished game. The whole sell a partial game/buy DLC to finish it is crap.
On the other other hand I have little sympathy for Apple as they are absurdly lawsuit happy, plus they love to step on the little guy which I've never been a fan of.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I don't think you understand what a game is if you think something that requires infinite in-game purchases to persist for the user is a game.
I don't think you understand what people constitute as "entertainment" these days.
Case in point: The entire MTV schedule.
'nuff said.
I don't think you understand what a game is if you think something that requires infinite in-game purchases to persist for the user is a game.
Oh, it's a game alright - just a matter of who is playing who...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sounds like another good example of people wanting the world to do their parenting for them. "My kid's doing something I don't like, and you're helping them do it! This is all your fault!" No, we're not stopping them, and neither are you. Keeping a handle on what your kids do is your responsibility, not mine. Start being a more responsible parent.
The crux of the issue in this case is whether Apple is allowing games that are designed to induce children to make these purchases. I'm all for parents taking responsible for their children, but I also have no problem punishing nefarious third parties who intentionally take advantage of kids to do something shady.
This was an obvious case of targeting children. It reminds me of an old case with Soupy Sales asking kids to send him green pieces of paper from their parent's wallets. It was meant as a joke but he got in a lot of trouble. Snopes has a great quote on this subject. I can't copy the paragraph but it starts out "It's easy for those .........."Captain Midnight". The paragraph does an excellent job of stating how corporations have always preyed on children.
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp
I think the biggest problem isn't the idea that apps created to get money through upgrades exist, but the fact that a nine-year old is given the powers of an expensive phone without the parents having a clue as to what she's doing on it is eyebrow-raising. Am I the only one bugged out when I see middle-schoolers having phones and other gadgets that are worth more than my car? Criminy, my mom wouldn't let me have a phone in my room on the main home line, never mind my OWN phone number.
And as if she didn't know she was doing wrong. Even if a child is immature in the areas of reasoning, I'm assuming any parent here would punish their kid if they found them digging into their wallet to steal cash. How is this any different? You put a LOCK on that shit, wherein any purchases made on your child's phone has to be approved by an adult first. I'm sure there's a method/service that does that. I almost never take the side of corporations like Apple, but in this case, I say the kid is grounded for six months, and double the chores in the house without an allowance. They had their fun, underhandedly. Time for parents to take responsibility for the stuff they buy their kids, especially if they don't intrinsically NEED it to begin with.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Before people go nuts defending holy Apple, Apple appears to have played a bad system to their favour.
The system is the billing. I suspect that those in-game purchases were lumped together making it
harder to actually identify what they were. If they were bundled with a iTunes purchase, you may look
at the bill and think "I bought those 96kilobit songs then, that's what it must be."
Rather than honestly noting each in-game purchase on the bill (even separated by 5 seconds) this
billing choice purposely confuses the consumer. And yes, the technology exists for fine granularity of
documenting of these purchases - it was ignored.
This is no different than AOL's months to cancel; rebates that never are rebated, and hundred of other
legal scams out there. I hope he's successful in court.
All games with in-game purchases are designed to entice the user to buy the in-game perks. Age doesn't matter. All that matters is who has control of the credit card. A parent that gives their kid access to their card is responsible for how they use it, whether they like it or not.
Parent gives kid a BB-gun, kid shoots their dog in the eye, parent tries to blame Daisy. NO
Quit trying to make me your kid's guardian. Accept your responsibility.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
.. Ask for a refund. I used to be a iTS T1 agent. This was common and refunds were made without any questions if people knew who made the purchase (if they didn't, it became credit card fraud)
or some system where free stuff should need all kinds of pop ups that paid ones do.
The old SA cable box software had stuff like that where the free VOD made you view a buy screen with price of $0.
The directv software does not have screen like that on the free VOD and only the pay stuff has the do you want to buy pop up.
some games used to hide the real money part or make it seem like in game cash. Now they have to use the IOS / system screens to use real money.
Now a game can make it seem like you are buying with in game funds. Now think what in back in the day with simcity 2000 the loans ended costing real money and they did ticks to hide that.
I'm a technical guy. You can bet if I owned an iPhone I'd know all the settings inside and out. However, it's not reasonable to expect a non-technical user of a technical device to know every setting on the phone, or even that the settings exist.
Also...I'm a parent of two small boys. They don't get a lot of TV, and they don't get a lot of time with electronic devices, but sometimes it's fun to let them play with something for a few minutes--in fact, my mom gives them her iPhone a few times a month as a treat.
It is not reasonable to expect that the kids are 100% supervised every minute of every day, and my 3-year-old can fire up his favorite games in a few seconds, so it's not too far-fetched to consider that a kid might be able to incur significant costs without the parent being a douchebag.
Only in America
No, actually, this sounds like a consumer protection issue.
If a program that appears to be targeted at children is not adequately labelled as enabling in-game purchases, or if it is not obvious to the user when a purchase is taking place, or if the program encourages or does not adequately prevent the user from inadvertently making such purchases, then it would certainly warrant an investigation by the consumer protection agency, at least in my tiny European country.
Not to say Apple is guilty here, just saying it is reasonable that the parties get to present their case in court.
I don't know how these games are labelled in the App Store, but I doubt I myself would suspect that an innocent looking children's game marked as "Free" could contain a nasty surprise like that, if I had not already read numerous stories like this one.
If the RIAA can make absurd demands, why not this guy? Why should corporations have an exclusive right to abuse our nation's courts?
In all seriousness, this whole situation is ridiculous. If this guy is not willing to hand his 9 year old a credit card, why is he willing to hand her a phone that can make charges to his credit card? I am no apologist for Apple, but I am not seeing how Apple is at fault here. This is like claiming that somehow, if a 9 year old is given a credit card and allowed to do whatever she wants in MacDonalds, it is MacDonalds' fault if the child runs up a huge bill.
Now, if this guy could show that Apple had tried to market a version of the iPhone for children, without making it clear that that particular version of the iPhone could be used to make charges to the parents' credit card without first requiring the permission of the parents, he might have a case. Except that is not what happened here.
Palm trees and 8
If Apple (or Disneyland, or anyone else) wants to have a walled garden where you have to play by their rules to get in there, then they have to be liable for what people find there. If you slip on the wet sidewalk at Disneyland that will be totally different than if you do that outside the park. By requiring developers to pass a stringent test and have each app approved, they are explicitly saying they approve of these sorts of apps. In fact, they are even approving that these apps can go in the children's section.
That is why Apple is vulnerable here but Android is not. Android doesn't force developers to do anything special. There is no endorsement, so no liability.
In terms of the settings thing, that is all well and good. But the fact is that Apple is making huge profits from parents who are buying iPods and iPads specifically because Apple has presented their walled garden as a safe place. Remember the famous quote from Steve Jobs to the blogger, saying that Apple is free from crap and if you want porn or viruses, you should go to Android? Well, the chickens have come home.
Any normal standard would find the business practice of these apps unethical anyway. Have you ever "played" one? This is not "my kid purchased a new champion in League of Legend by accident". These apps are specifically designed to be deceptive and manipulative for children.
I have in app purchases turned off and protected but then again, I'm not stupid.
Can't you turn off in app purchases on the iPhone? I have it turned off almost all the time and let the kids use it because I know they can't make these kinds of purchases. I don't even want to make these kind of purchase myself. If it's a setting in the iPhone, then someone should tell the guy.
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
I did some stupid things as a kid that cost my parents at least $200 of 1970's money. They did not sue anyone.
Though what i have always wondered about the age of "in app purchases" is how much of them go through the "store/market" and not the app provider's billing crew. Seems like it would give the opportunity for any app maker that uses their own billing system to remove barriers that would require authentication or even notification of purchases. Think if your information is given in app to "unlock the full version" instead of the "app/market" now the EULA for adding that information may bring the ability for the application to bill as you go. Lets look at an example I buy the hot bird flinger game everyone seems obsessed about and supply in app my information to buy new explosive birds. Awesome now i can explode the feathery smirking bastards. Sweet boom! save the day. What the ending to the game wasn't the end? Lets grab that new level by clicking "continue exploding birds in the sun" a new 20$ addon with more bird types! Awesome! No where does it say the content is DLC and will be charged. it just loads and continues... and now you have a seamless operation of pumping sales and technically having already informed the customer at the initial purchase somewhere in the EULA that some continuations of levels could be dlc. Bam there you have something that could be considered... well i'm not sure malicious is the right word but i'm sure slashdot has some better suggestions...but that is how i've been noticing all of these "in app purchases" with zenonia, and many other games. Even after purchasing the "full version" there are a ton of ad-dons and "bonuses" that seem to just crop out of nowhere...i initially though it was just an unfinished game or the devs just "forgot" to put that content in there but it could be more.
Well, if this doesn't show how totally screwed up the US legal system has become, I don't know what will. How the fuck can you claim $5 *MILLION* in compensation over a $200 in-app purchase?!? Where is the harm? Did the child or parent lose their mind over this and get institutionalized for life? At best, they should be entitled to a refund on the purchases and little else. Perhaps throw in a gift card good for $100 of future purchases.
I agree that in-app purchases are a risk, but this was clearly preventable.
This just blows the mind. The courts should not allow this abuse of the legal system and consequent waste of tax dollars. There is no justification for the compensation claim.
There's a setting that disables in-app purchases - which you can password protect. Even if that's not set, you need to enter your iTunes password to authorize them.
If this guy failed to turn off in-app purchases AND gave his special snowflake his iTunes password, then she could run up a bill. Anyone see the problem here?
It's just another gold digger looking at Apple as a source of a big payday.
Not all IOS devices are the same. The Ipad allows parents to set enable restrictions which prevent downloading of any application and prevent in app purchases. When I let my kid use the ipad I use these restrictions and I DO NOT DIVULGE my password to her. When it comes to the ipad I have no sympathy for parents. Anyone who lets a child use a technological device should have full understanding of the security and financial risks associated with that device.
An ipod touch for instance does not allow a parent to set any restrictions. This means that while an ipod touch seems like the perfect ios device for a child, being less expensive but able to run most of the same apps, it is financially risky for a child because there is no way to turn off bad behavior. As a responsible parent I will get my
kid an ipod touch.
I see too many people blame others for their own lazyness and stupidity. People expect everything to be done for them hassle free. Well I'm sorry to say but you can't drive a car without having learned to drive. Why should it be different for anything else? Understand what your doing instead of just clicking OK without thinking. Anyhow, it's not like Apple sold them poison labeled as candy. These people need to take this mistake as a life lesson and move on. The kid shouldn't be spanked, the parent should!!!
...don't store your payment information in the Apple Store.