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."
You do have to enter a password but it does cache it for a short time. So in theory a parent making a purchase and handing an iOS device to a child could enable the child to make purchases at will for a short time.
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.
In practice, the child most likely had the password. Note that you can also disable in-app purchases in the settings (and protect that setting with a different password).
iOS does give the parent the ability to set up the phone/ipad/ipod to require password every single transaction without wait window. It also provides a way for you to entirely disable the ability to consume In-App Purchases, so you can rest assured the kid is not asking you for the password for anything but the initial app.
Don't you get it? He's standing up for all the parents in the US that were fleeced of tens of dollars. Learn the options of the device and set limits? It shouldn't be my responsibility to control my child.
It's class damages, not that he incurred a $5million damage. If Apple takes even 1% of the revenue off in-app purchases, then they've made far more than $5 million anyway.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Prior to the iOS 4.3 update in March 2011, there was a 15-minute grace period after you entered your password where you didn't have to enter it again. Following some complaints that were similar to this plaintiff's, Apple changed it so that there was an option to make passwords mandatory every time, rather than having a grace period. And if you did choose to keep the grace period enabled, they made it so that your first in-app purchase in that grace period would require you to re-enter the password.
Effectively, this closed the "hole" that the plaintiff's daughter used (well, to be fair, Apple can't fix bad parenting), wherein the parent downloaded an app, entered their password, and the child managed to ring up $200 worth of in-app purchases in 15 minutes or less. The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple.
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.
"The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple."
If that is the case, then this is nothing more than extortion by the plaintiff. If Apple addressed the issue quickly and effectively then there is no "lawsuit" needed nor warranted, especially if it is class action.
Additionally, the "father" is not worthy of that title. If he couldn't trust his daughter to not buy "in-app" upgrades, she shouldn't have a friggin iPhone to start with. If it was an accident, then the guy should have made the daughter work off the debt and learn the valuable lesson that nothing is free in life. But rather than deal with the daughter's selfish behavior, he is trying to reward her with a "get rich quick" scheme.
Douchebags like that need to be humiliated (if that is even possible) into shame for total lack of parental skills.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Every time this topic comes up I wonder if telephone companies have ever been sued like this over kids racking up huge bills via long-distance and toll numbers.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
maybe its time to rethink having an iPhone
Best suggestion I've heard so far.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There's a very simple reason developers are tending towards 'freemium' games: it makes more money (at least on ios). Let's be honest, as much as a developer may love making an app, if they are to invest the time and resources required to make it good, they need to get paid. So their options are ad supported, which often doesn't pay very well, a non-free app, which often won't get many downloads (unless you're a marketing guru), or IAP. IAP have the benefit of allowing a free app which gets lots of downloads, the possibility of ad generated revenue that can be disabled for a fee if the user wants, and the option for the USER to determine how much they want to give. It's (theoretically) win/win for developer and customer.
However, the kids apps are absolutely horrible. The apps themselves are usually quick hack jobs with some manipulative child psychology tricks in them. Adults often hate them and can't stand them, but the kids love them and beg and cry to get them. Then they dress up IAP in pretty buttons and what not so every thing the kid clicks on brings up a purchase window and the kid bugs the heck out of the parents to fix it... One slip on the parents part and they accidentally make a purchase.
Honestly, they need to go after the lecherous developers that make that trash, rather than ask apple to censor (yet more) apps from the app store.
While not entirely without merit, the problem is not so easily dismissed.
Remember back 20 years ago when a company could not say things that were deceptive and/or false without getting in to trouble? Well, welcome to the real world of today where it's normal to take advantage of people.
What really happens on the games is that there is no message of anything except for the game asking for a password. Unless you read page 9374 of the TOS and EULA for the game at download time, you would not know that someone was about to sock your account for anything. The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
Companies can tell you that you won something, and when you fill out the form to get the prize they switch your service and charge you money. They could also give you nothing, sell your information to a marketing company for 10c and make sure your text messages eat up your data plan.
Unfortunately, it's a very dirty world we are in. There is a lot of blame to go around.
Should the kid be taught a lesson regarding finance and the dangers of scams and scammers? Sure
but spanked because they got screwed over by an adult that prays on people for a living? Hardly.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You do realize that you have at least 1-2 years in which to file a suit after you've been injured, so that filing a class action after you discover that you and a bunch of other people were injured is not extortion, but rational and appropriate. Its also far easier to justify a hiring a lawyer to pursue a case where a large number of people have been harmed then to either hire a lawyer to pursue a case worth only $200, or learn how to navigate small claims court on your own.
Also, define "quickly" and "effectively" -- these sorts of games pretty much existed in the app store from the get-go, and IOS 4.3 was released in March 2011. The iPad was released in April 2010, which ignores all the phones that came before it. Shall we google for the first complaints from iPhone users, or is 11 months sufficiently beyond "quickly" for you?
Screw you. I've bought an iPad for a four year old. Four year olds barely understand the concept of "money," much less what an in app purchase is. Fortunately it was an iPad 2, I'd read about the issue, and I configured the thing to always require a password (as well as to disable in app purchases, although frankly that just makes the times that you want to make them far more painful -- 1 password vs. exit, settings, restrictions, pin, switch, double-home, app, password).
You want to reward Apple (gatekeeper/reviewer of all, for a healthy 30%) and software developers like Zynga by freeing them from any responsibility to learn their own lesson and modify their own "get rich quick schemes." The parent and child deserve at least some blame, but the experts (i.e., Apple and developers) were being predatory and quite blameworthy. Is Apple's defense at trial going to be "we couldn't possibly foresee this issue since none of us have children"? Apple is all about the user experience, but does anyone other than an idiot, an addict, or a child buy a $99 consumable immediately after buying a "free" game? I'd love to see a demographic study of what goes on here.
It's irrelevant how much of a technical genius and/or disciplinarian you may be -- the law protects consumers who are average citizens from unconscionable acts, such as where a seller takes advantage of consumers "lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree." (Use your mad skills to Google the phrase)
First time iPhone/iPad buyers are not going to have the knowledge or experience to know that their purchase password not only is cached to allow other app store purchases, but cached to allow in app purchases as well. First time iPhone/iPad buyers are not going to that there is an option to turn in-app purchases off. You buy an app for your kid, you hand the iPad to the kid to play the app once it's installed. Not 15 minutes later. You buy a free app, you don't expect progress in the app to essentially require you to buy "a basket of coins" for $99.
If people were such geniuses, then the default configuration would be require passwords to be entered immediately, and possibly to delve into the settings to enable in-app purchases. That's the more secure and fail safe configuration, after all. Why is that not the default? Because your average person is not a genius, does not have time to read a user manual, and learns by use and experiance. If they become annoyed, they might look for setting to chang
what is wrong with a good spanking on your wife when she is a little brat ?
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
But that don't change the fact they shouldn't have been pushing these apps for kids. Do they think little Suzy has her own CC? If adults want to buy invisible property in some game? More power to 'em I say, I have a boy that pays $15 a month to be a fricking Bounty Hunter in that new Star Wars MMO. But these things are aimed at little kids and that just isn't right. if you want to sell them a game? Fine and dandy but the whole "bait apps" description sounds pretty right on to me. And if Apple wants to push iOS to the masses then maybe they should be a little more careful at what's aimed at kids huh?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
screwed over by an adult that prays
Come on, Catholic priests have nothing to do with this particular instance of abuse.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
And if $200 is draining your credit card, maybe its time to rethink having an iPhone.
He said draiing, not maxing out. You can drain a swiming pool with a 1/4" tube. It may take a while, but it's still draining.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Have you no concept of adults, actual grown skilled professionals scamming children for their pocket, a beating is required but you are utterly wrong about the target.
This is no excuse adults setting out purposely to scam children. Reality here due to the cost of purchases credit card details should be required to be entered every time with emphasis on the amount of money being spent. Not euphemisms, buy bullshit berries with pretend credits (only those pretend credits are really pretend they are direct deductions from your parents credit card and in turn the loss of all your pocket money).
This is sick stuff, professional stealing children's lollipops in real life. It is mind boggling, can you imagine the meetings were psychologists, accounts, coders get togethor to create games to scam the pocket money from ten year olds. Each plotting more enticing, psychological manipulations to get the kids to press the pocket money wiping out button. "Yeah add that, that'll suck in the little rats","Oh Yeah, that'll get the little beggars competing","We need that to feed the little suckers egos so they spend big","We all gonna get rich scamming dumb kids pocket money, what a bunch of suckers, yuck, yuck ".
Seriously wake the fuck up to yourself, "ADULTS SCAMMING CHILDREN'S POCKET MONEY", what the fuck is the matter with you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It does so... now. It didn't in the past, which is presumably when this occurred.
Search "highest grossing apps" and look for all the "free" apps in the highest grossing category. It's insane. Why would so many people buy free pay-to-play games? I've accidentally loaded some up, and always immediately delete them when I realize what they are. There should be an easy way in settings to ban all in-ap purchases (not a new password, but just flat ban them), or to identify the in-ap enabled games on the ap browser so you'll never accidentally get one because you didn' read all the reviews and release notes (though they seem to be getting better about explicitly identifying them in the description, you could still end up buying based solely on the picture, so it should have "In App Purchase" across the image of the game or something.
Learn to love Alaska
What really happens on the games is that there is no message of anything except for the game asking for a password.
Do you have any proof of this
I don't know how this particular game works (although one of TFA implies it works the way most do) but most games tell you that you are about to spend real money, and they tell you how much you are going to spend.
I'm not sure that Apple is at fault here, and I think the parents need to be careful when giving the password to children. But you can't expect a child to know that when they click on "Bushel of Berries $99.99" to know they are actually spending $99.99 in hard money, and not game money. Especially since a lot of these games have game money you already spend.
It does so... now. It didn't in the past, which is presumably when this occurred.
How far back? iOS has had Parental Restrictions on In-App Purchases nearly from the beginning.
iOS 3.0 introduced In-App Purchases. These still required a Password, but there might have been no other "Restriction".
iOS 3.1 introduced In-App Purchase Restrictions. (See pg. 146 of the user manual PDF).
Apple released iOS 3.0 on June 17, 2009. iOS 3.1 (with had the in-app purchase restrictions) debuted on September 9, 2009. So, we're talking about THREE MONTHS, TOPS that Parents ONLY had the ability to hide their iOS Password from their kids. Hell, Apple even allows a less-draconian option called "iTunes Allowance", which allows you, THE PARENT, to teach fiscal responsibility by allowing LIMITED iTunes purchases (there are also "content" restrictions to control this further).
Honestly, I really don't see how Apple could have been more responsible. They identified that perhaps some additional controls would be a good thing (over and above a Parent simply NOT GIVING THEIR PASSWORD OUT), and had a solution in PARENT'S hands in under three months. I think that is pretty damned good!