Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @09:24PM from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.

jfruh writes "Android apps sold through the Google Play app store require the user to enter their username and password before making an in-app purchase — but once they've done that, they can continue to do so for half an hour without re-authenticating. Now a lawsuit is claiming this loophole allows children to run up in-app purchases on their parents' credit cards, 'causing Google to pocket millions of dollars.'"

48 of 321 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Please.... by Apotekaren · 2014-03-12 21:30 · Score: 5, Funny

For once, won't someone think of the PARENTS?

--
She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
1. Re:Please.... by Richard_at_work · 2014-03-12 21:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wallet manufacturers must be quaking in their boots.
2. Re:Please.... by Travis+Mansbridge · 2014-03-12 21:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Hey mom/dad, enter your password"
  
  A: "Sure"
  B: "Why?"
  
  Which sounds more responsible?
3. Re:Please.... by richy+freeway · 2014-03-12 21:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point is that after they have entered their password, the child has 30 minutes of unfettered purchasing power and there is NO warning of this at all.
4. Re:Please.... by KingOfBLASH · 2014-03-12 21:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, Google designed a system that would be a compromise between security and usability since some people would obviously go bat shit if they had to enter their password every time.
  That a parent gave this to their child and did not properly supervise them is the parents fault.
  Although it would indeed be nice if the parents could indeed have a better monitoring service for kids phones.
5. Re:Please.... by Sockatume · 2014-03-12 22:49 · Score: 2
  
  The tablets aren't $300 and the children aren't toddlers. Next time you're baffled as to why a lawsuit exists, ask yourself if you have a problem with the actual lawsuit, or the one in your imagination.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
6. Re:Please.... by Cenan · 2014-03-12 22:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Kids are not supposed to know the full range of consequences of their actions, that is why we call them children and treat them in a certain way.
  First of all, the in-app purchasing is specifically designed to not warn you when a purchase is made, and to make the purchases as subtle as possible. Even if that were not the case, you'd have to buy the app or whatever and wait 30 minutes before handing the device back to your child to be safe, yet there is currently no indication that the timer is even running or when it expires - not one that is easily accessible. And the mere fact that Google expects you to sit around with your device for 30 minutes, waiting for a timer to expire is unreasonable in the extreme.
  This is absolutely a tech issue, as well as an ethics issue. Google likes the easy money, and their responses to parents who have complained about it have been less than stellar. Google is in a position to both build and destroy trust in consumer computing, on behalf of not only themselves, but everyone who develops for their devices and similar devices. The position Google has taken on this issue is the money-grab-and-run short term approach, and they've been pointing at the app developers for the fix. This is unreasonable, and doesn't actually fix the broken eco-system that is Android apps. The good guys will continue to be the good guys and you're giving a free pass to the rotten apples. Couple this with the fact that it is almost impossible to tell good from bad on Android until you get burned, and you have a major issue going forward, and Google is well on its way to forcing legislation on this issue. Legislation that I bet Google is going to piss and moan over when it passes, even though they, and fuckwits like them, were the ones to cause it.
  Short story even shorter: fix the fucking issue and get on with it already. The fix is so simple it would be hilarious if it wasn't such a fucking money-grab from a supposedly not evil corporation. Make purchasing passwords one time only, or allow for restrictions on where and when the purchasing can be made.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
7. Re:Please.... by bfandreas · 2014-03-12 23:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is not a mom/dat CC issue but goes quite a bit further.
  
  I will try to demonstrate this on a particular piece of shite brought to us from the people we love to loathe.
  Enter Heroes of Dragon Age. This thing is a deck-building game. Think Hearthstone but the game plays your matches for you. In that respect I would consider it nothing more than an elaborate animated screensaver rather than a game. In HoDA the rarest cards pretty much guarantee your wins. You could grind for months and get lucky and get a couple of them. Or you could cough up monies to buy gems. 99 bucks buy you roughly 20 card draws, 18 of which will not be useful in any way shape or form(+/- statistical variance, but bear with me). You could play matches to earn gold to buy the packs which cost gold but your chance to get anything useful from those is so low that people who get lucky immediately start a forum post about that which in turn will become quite lively. Grinding for gold is a possibility but for one snag. You are limited to 6 PvE and 6PvP matches every two hours. Unless of course you pay gems to play more. So far so bad. The PvE campaign is designed in such a way that you will need the best cards after about an hour of play time. You will encounter multiple major brick walls.
  
  This is one of the freemium offenders I know. I've been grinding as a free player since Christmas since it is a nice diversion which doesn't require a lot of thought or interaction. But I do have to say one thing about this: It smacks of gambling. In fact it is an elaborate variation of a slot machine. And I can see how a gambling addict could sink hundreds if not thousands of dollars into such a thing. And it seems to be completely unregulated.
  
  OTOH if I gave you 99 bucks to spend on games and you headed over to the nearest Steam sale you would get so many games that you wouldn't emerge until next year if you completed them all. No value for a lot of money driven by addiction. Children are the easiest prey for this but certainly not the most lucrative.
  
  So if you compare prices for gems with Steam sales you would think that these are not hardcore gamers. Wrong. Surprisingly so:
  http://kotaku.com/who-are-the-...
  http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
  
  We are way, WAY beyond "you morons, stop buying gems!". At this point we are in need of regulation Nevada-style. In the meantime suing Google and Apple is the easiest way to apply some pressure but it sure as hell is not enough.
  
  I would imagine you weren't totally shocked that EA is one of the worst offenders in that particular arena...
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
8. Re:Please.... by gnasher719 · 2014-03-12 23:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  First of all, the in-app purchasing is specifically designed to not warn you when a purchase is made, and to make the purchases as subtle as possible.
  Just yesterday there was news elsewhere that with iOS 7.1 (which allows a 15 minute period without password entry), when you enter your password now, a dialog will appear telling you about it, with an OK button and a button that takes you to "Settings" where you can turn that feature off.
9. Re:Please.... by xeoron · 2014-03-12 23:08 · Score: 2
  
  They would avoid this problem if they had multi-accounts setup on their device with parental controls set locking all programs except the ones they approve of for the kids account.
10. Re:Please.... by richy+freeway · 2014-03-12 23:13 · Score: 2
  
  Where? Have had a look and I cant find anything about a 30 minute window.
11. Re:Please.... by murdocj · 2014-03-12 23:21 · Score: 2
  
  "I want to buy a horse in this game"
  "How much does it cost?"
  "$1.50"
  "OK" ... puts in password....
  kid buys horse. Then something else pops up that says "would you like fancy clothes" and the kid goes for that as well. etc.
  Who is being irresponsible here? The parent? Or Google? How tough would it be to have a setting that EACH in-app purchase needs a password, OR in-app purchases are unlocked for X minutes?
12. Re:Please.... by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-03-12 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  No, Google designed a system that would be a compromise between security and usability since some people would obviously go bat shit if they had to enter their password every time.
  No -- you're setting up a false dichotomy. Google could have easily put a little check box or something in the password dialog saying "Remember password to authorize ALL purchases for the next 30 minutes?" kinda like the "keep me logged in" box on webmail accounts or something. That would solve your problem AND make very clear what was happening to users.
  After the whole Apple nonsense regarding the exact same issue, that would be at least a minimal attempt to clarify things to users.
  
  That a parent gave this to their child and did not properly supervise them is the parents fault.
  That's true. But, in fairness, I'm having trouble thinking of other toys for kids where you can say "Here kid - play this game with the Smurfs," and 30 minutes later accumulate a $300 bill for Smurfberries or whatever.
  The parents should have paid closer attention, but the normal assumption when you buy a toy at the toy store is that it won't suck hundreds of dollars from your wallet AFTER you buy it for your kid. Many kids apps today are deliberately designed to exploit the cluelessness of parents and kids to make money this exact way.
13. Re:Please.... by Cenan · 2014-03-12 23:54 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, that is the state of affairs now. The recommended action is to just not give the device to a child, but are we really supposed to accept this? How does that fit with all the other noble goals of these corporations, like furthering technological awareness. The problem isn't so much this isolated issue, but that Google and their ilk is zig-zagging all over the place, depending on where the profits lie.
  If they're actually designing devices with the implied understanding that they are not child safe, why are there so many Google approved apps in the Store targeted at children? They're designing devices and software for adults but are pushing for the adults to hand these unsafe devices to their children, in the hopes that the parent won't complain when the child one-clicks the trust fund away into Google's coffers. Google would also like every child in school to use one of their devices, or one running their software, yet they're not safe for children?
  Picking Google's motives apart is the "not rocket science" part of all this, yet a site full of nerds can't seem to grasp that.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
14. Re:Please.... by MickyTheIdiot · 2014-03-13 00:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is a lot of missing the point on this thread. This problem goes down to the core of the social and psychological problems and tradeoffs that happen in GUI and application design, web design, and any other system that is accessed by members of the general public.
  Somewhere there is a manager yelling at a designer because "it's hard to use" because there were complaints from users that they "just put in there password" and "why should I do that again?" when they were making a series of purchases. So the designer incorporated a 30 minute time out or grace period to get around the whining. Sometimes there is no absolute sweet spot... there is going to be whining about the design either way. They probably should incorporate a variable (as someone else on this thread mentioned) so the user has control and Google can say that the user has the power to make a choice.
  People are thinking this is deliberate by Google? Bah. Google isn't 100% non-evil, but I don't buy that. They still aren't doing their design in like Microsoft does, in their Marketing department.
15. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 00:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think the real problem is that parents want to use a phone or tablet as a pacifier, so they don't have to parent the tykes.
  Ah yes, the rallying call of the childless. I'm sure that if you ever have kids, you'll have the means and inclination to devote N hours of your own time every day simply to keeping them entertained.
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
16. Re:Please.... by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-13 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  It is their problem is the agreement is unreasonably long. For example no-one could reasonably be expected to fully read and understand the PayPal or iTunes Terms of Service because they are longer than most novels and full of legal jargon.
  A lot of people look at this situation backwards. They see it as "company offers a service, onus is on you to check it out". The law, at least in Europe, is that the company only has permission to offer a service if it agrees to society's rules, one of which is "no unreasonable contracts". In this case the contract is probably reasonable, but only if it is made very clear (not buried on page 42) that entering your password at that time authorizes nearly unlimited purchases for the next half hour. I imagine the regulators will force them to add a "one time only" button too.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
17. Re:Please.... by murdocj · 2014-03-13 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  Or Google could put in a simple option that says that every in-game purchase requires a password. No need to buy special gift cards or worry that your kid won't even realize he's buying something.
18. Re: Please.... by nbritton · 2014-03-13 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't matter what is in the contract with apple or bank. The charge put onto the credit card was an act of fraud perpetrated by the child. The card holder did not contractually consent to the transaction. The only recourse for Apple or the bank is to have the child criminally prosecuted or commence a civil suit to try and hold the parent(s) responsible for the child's actions. Good luck with ether one of those, as Apple facilitated the child. Furthermore, because the card holder did not consent to the charges, they can lawfully, and in good faith, dispute the charges with their credit card company. The parent has a clear path of recourse against Apple, which is to dispute the charges with the credit card company.
19. Re:Please.... by Cenan · 2014-03-13 00:54 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I don't buy that argument, it's a cop out. It's elitist to think that everyone who can't assemble their own gadget from scratch do not deserve to own one, and a mentality that didn't really fit into the real world back in the 90s when it surfaced (with respect to computer gadgets).
  Sometimes I wish it would just be that simple, "learn how to use your gadget, or get the fuck out". But it's not, because the majority are people who still don't quite get it all, and they're the one laws are passed to protect, to the detriment of the rest of us.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
20. Re:Please.... by captbob2002 · 2014-03-13 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  perhaps they'll just go "old school" and park em in front o a TV set.
  Already got burned by something like this when a nephew stayed with us for a few days. Children can be more clever than non-parents expect.
21. Re:Please.... by hawkinspeter · 2014-03-13 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If I'm prompted for a password when I try to buy software, then I'd expect any attempt to buy further software would require the password again.
  
  If I put in a password and it flashed up "Authorised for 30 minutes" and had an easy way to cancel the 30 minutes, then the fault would be clearly with the parent.
  
  It's unreasonable to have a hidden timeout to allow kids to buy games on someone else's account.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
22. Re: Please.... by BitZtream · 2014-03-13 01:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not sure where you read that, but Apple went through this exact problem several years ago . Kids spending literally hundreds of dollars because once mom entered the store password, they didn't need it again for 30 minutes. ...
  After that , they NICELY refunded all those silly transactions and then made it require a password FOR EVERY PURCHASE.
  If 7.1 gives a 15 minute window, that's brand new and backwards from their previous direction.
  I'm on 7.0.6 now, requires a password for ALL purchases, even 10 seconds apart
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
23. Re:Please.... by hink · 2014-03-13 01:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is that there is NO WAY to disable or change the 30 minute window. Using the "require password for all purchases" option does not override the 30 minute window. Google page about how this works. So, I guess the only way to prevent this is to confiscate the phone for 30 minutes.
  
  "But your child should be trained to not buy things! You're a bad parent!"
  
  Children are not animals, whipped into learning behaviors. They do not learn as fast as some of you obviously non-parents seem to think. Not to mention that even angelic children can sometimes be "mischievous".
  Oh, and make sure you don't hand your device to your adult friends after you purchase something either. Adults can be even more greedy and stupid than kids.
  
  --
  - speaking only for myself, as always
24. Re:Please.... by omnichad · 2014-03-13 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The fact is, the parent can't revoke authorization for future in-app purchases after authorizing one. This is something that should be addressed. It has led to sleazy app developers taking advantage of them. It's a trojan horse.
  Parents are responsible, yes. And they want a viable option to use that responsibility.
25. Re:Please.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-13 01:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's almost like Apple and Google were both in the wrong, and Apple corrected it.
  Oh wait, it's exactly like that.
26. Re:Please.... by HairOfTheBambit · 2014-03-13 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  I have a 7 year old and 4 year old. Both of my children are allowed to play games on my phones and tablets. They both know not to make purchases, and not to install games without my permission, They never have even tried. The consequences they know about is that they get in trouble for purchasing things without permission. That's simple enough. Now, I also teach my children about money and rewards and such. But none of that is needed to get them not to purchase in app stuff. It could be that when they are older I run into another problem, with them willfully doing something w/o permission (teenagers can be known to do that). But that will not be because they don't know the full range of their consequences, it will be because they are teenagers and know everything. Of course the company is going to make it easy to pay them. Why wouldn't they? Why should they make it difficult rather than parent taking responsibility for their kids and knowing what games they are playing and what they are doing with it? Now it might be in their best interest to institute the password on every purchase for PR reasons, and they might lost the case because people don't want to take responsibility for their kids and would rather let other people ensure they are not doing things they are not supposed to and courts are filled with lots of like minded people, but in the end, it is the PARENTS account and they should not give a password to a child if they are not comfortable with the decisions that child is making. Its like when texting used to cost money and parents ended up with huge bills. The cell companies could have required a special password for every text too I suppose. Or parent can pay attention to their kids (Again, that is probably more teenage issue than paying for another 30 minutes of candy crush or what have you)
27. Re:Please.... by butalearner · 2014-03-13 02:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Children can be more clever than non-parents expect.
  Surely, you jest! This is Slashdot, where everybody except actual parents knows the proper way to raise children, and supervision means hovering over your child at all times, never bathing or using the restroom or cooking meals or sleeping.
  I'm glad some commenters don't have children, although if they did, they wouldn't sound so high and mighty at times like this. Seriously, my six year old plays outside with neighborhood kids all the time and builds way cooler stuff with Legos than I did at his age, but having other recreational activities didn't stop him from getting his hands on my wife's phone for a few minutes earlier this week and spending $16 on in-app purchases before she stopped him. And that's all because we had the audacity to have an infant that needs more attention when we aren't rich enough to both stay home and hover over the children all day.
  We're not going to be joining the class action lawsuit or anything, but it's tiresome to see armchair parents pretend like they could stop it happening. Like most of you we have a lot of devices around, and no matter how well you think you have everything locked down, all it takes is one mistake. This is the only time my son has "accidentally" spent money, and no matter where you want to lay the blame, consider this: if my wife had an iPhone, this wouldn't have happened. Is that really the response you think Google should give?
28. Re:Please.... by MBGMorden · 2014-03-13 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Indeed. I don't think they understand that "parenting" isn't so well defined.
  My kids I do a lot of activities with. Next weekend we're going to the zoo. A few weeks ago we went to the aquarium. I read to them and tell them stories quite frequently.
  However, often times they WANT to go do something by themselves. Whether that is playing in the back yard or on the iPad (or more recently the laptop - the 5 year old has gotten pretty proficient with both. She can't even read but she understands how to open the browser and type in "pbskids.org"). You simply can't be there like a hawk for every second without delving into helicopter parenting, which is just a bad idea. At a minimum I should be able to set the tablet so that it asks me for the password EVERY SINGLE TIME you make a purchase.
  Its not something that I have to worry about as I generally hate microtransaction games to the point that I don't let them buy anything in them (so I never enter the password the 1st time), but I certainly can see why someone would want this.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
29. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is exactly the problem.
  Current situation: Thank you for entering your password to authorize the purchase on screen. I will not bother to mention that you've also authorized unlimited additional purchases over the next half hour.
  Bare minimum acceptable solution: Thank you for entering your password to authorize this purchase, as well as unlimited additional purchases for half an hour.
  Slightly better: Please enter your password to authorize this purchase, as well as unlimited additional purchases for half an hour.
  Good, and easy solution: Thank you for your purchase. Authorize additional purchases for the next (30 minutes | 24 hours | Forever | No thanks, ask for my password next time ).
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
30. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  It's not about having "N hours to keeping them entertained", it's about choosing the mode of entertainment. Kids got along just fine before tablets, and in many cases were more social and had more exercise.
  I'm not against kids playing games etc - I certainly played enough in my youth - but there are better things than surrounding them with screens 24/7
  Nobody is saying that surrounding them with screens 24/7 is the answer. And it's not like other modes of entertainment are without risk. I have to supervise my kid to some extent no matter what he's doing--playing with neighbor kids, making something with glue, paint, scissors, etc., or playing games on the tablet. This isn't about parents abdicating their duties to the tablet. This is about an unreasonable system.
  If the intersection by my house had no stop signs, I'd go to the city council and say, "Hey! There's an uncontrolled intersection right next to my house, and I can't let my kid out the door without direct supervision, or he could get hurt. There need to be some stop signs there!" That's the answer, not "pay closer attention to your kid you lazy parent!"
  Likewise, if I can't let my kid play on the tablet without hovering over his shoulder the whole time to make sure he doesn't accidentally buy $99 worth of fooberries, the best answer isn't to just suck it up and watch him play his game for an hour. The answer is to put in some damn stop signs, and that's all people are asking for here.
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
31. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  Kids got along just fine before tablets, and in many cases were more social and had more exercise.
  This "good old days" thinking is lazy and often wrong. My kid has basically all the screen time he wants (I don't set limits), but he plays outside with our neighbors for hours a day, running up and down the street or playing basketball. And you may not have noticed it, but games are quite social these days. He's always trading pokemon or game secrets with his friends who play the same games, or even playing some of them online with the neighbors.
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
32. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  To begin with, the justice system should be based entirely on rehabilitation, not punishment, so it's our "Tough On Crime" mentality that causes these problems in the first place. So we should be tailoring it to the individuals, anyway. I care more about real justice than anything else.
  Well, this is where I bow out. I agree entirely that rehabilitation is more worthwhile, but less emphasized (at least in the US, where I live) than retribution. But if we're beginning the discussion with a complete overhaul of the entire criminal justice system, then I think I'll sit out. I came here to talk about Google's payment authorization scheme.
  Have a good day.
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
33. Re:Please.... by exploder · 2014-03-13 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  to the detriment of the rest of us.
  Yes.
  Yes, everyone loves to believe that they are (and always will be) smart and tough enough that THEY don't need any of those pesky nanny-state consumer protection laws. Mr. Galt, is that you?
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Why? by Chatterton · 2014-03-12 21:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why Google didn't reacted following the Apple case? It was just a question of time before the same kind of lawsuit would begin against them...
Just call the credit card company and tell them by Chrisq · 2014-03-12 21:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just call the credit card company and tell them that you didn't authorise these payments, then tell google you've done that. This puts the ball in google's court - the payment goes into dispute and they need to decide whether to claim that you did authorise the purchase or give you a refund. My money would be on the latter.
1. Re:Just call the credit card company and tell them by Chrisq · 2014-03-12 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just call the credit card company and tell them that you didn't authorise these payments, then tell google you've done that. This puts the ball in google's court - the payment goes into dispute and they need to decide whether to claim that you did authorise the purchase or give you a refund. My money would be on the latter.
  Doing this you would be committing fraud against the credit card company and get you in trouble. You did authorise these payments because you logged in your child with proper credentials to shop using your card. That you didn't understand the consequences isn't good enough enough defence. Though I would love to be able to reverse the charges when my wife starts shopping with my logged in credit card enabled account.
  It would not be fraud - you authorised one payment then google took the rest without authorisation. I have done this previously with unauthorised follow-up payments and it really goes smoothly, it goes into dispute - the company has a chance to appeal - decides not to - terminates service and refund stands
2. Re:Just call the credit card company and tell them by N1AK · 2014-03-13 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  It would be no different than taking your child to a store, allowing them to pick an item which you then purchase with your card by swiping and signing, BUT for the next half hour they're able to just grab whatever they want
  It would be quite different. However it would have some similarities to agreeing to a room tab at a hotel that anyone with your room key could use to buy drinks then giving your kid the room key and being surprised when you get billed for the drinks they buy.
  
  I find it one of the amusing ironies of many /.ers that they're sticklers for the laws when it comes to laws they approve of but when it comes to things they don't agree with they think the law must somehow make it illegal. Google 'should' change how the system operates because it's the right thing to do but that doesn't magically mean I think what they are doing currently is illegal.
Wait a minute... by narcc · 2014-03-12 21:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

This sounds awfully familiar... Didn't Apple have this exact same problem?
Thanks, TFA:

The case against Google is similar to one brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Apple over children's in-app purchases. That case was settled in January and Apple agreed to pay at least US$32.5 million to customers.
Now we need to ask why Google didn't take action to prevent this sort of thing.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
1. Re:Wait a minute... by LookIntoTheFuture · 2014-03-12 21:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Now we need to ask why Google didn't take action to prevent this sort of thing.
  Because the 30 minute *cha-ching!* window was making the corporate overlords and their shareholders cream their jeans?
  
  --
  Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Re:Next we should sue the US treasury for issuing by Barefoot+Monkey · 2014-03-12 22:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Monetary bills are already child-proof in this regard. If I give a child $1 this doesn't cause any other money I may have to spontaneously teleport into the child's possession every time the child approaches a toy or sweet within the next 30 minutes. If the child wants more of my money then he/she will need to ask me again.
Re:Next we should sue the US treasury for issuing by Richard_at_work · 2014-03-12 22:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

A child taking money from your wallet without your knowledge is no different to this situation.
Simple Checkbox by Drethon · 2014-03-12 23:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

That says "Remember this payment method for the next half hour?" Then they can choose to make it a one shot only payment.
Protecting us from the stupid by Akratist · 2014-03-12 23:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ho hum. Try exercising some parental responsibility for a change.
Dad .. Can I? by ciderbrew · 2014-03-12 23:50 · Score: 2

No!
Oh but why?
No!
But. But.. That's not fair.
Don't care. Grow up unhappy.

Kids need to learn how to say No! to their kids or you end up with shitty grandchildren.
That's my motivation and future investment in people done.
Better notification of in-app purchases by swb · 2014-03-12 23:52 · Score: 2

Too many games are sold for free and/or $0.99 yet to be playable require in app purchases to be at all playable.
I closely control what games my 9 year old can play and review them before we buy them and its impossible to tell which ones will be worth a damn without blowing another $10 in in-app purchases to make them playable. I reject games with what look like too-many in-app purchases, and he doesn't have the ability to make those purchases.
Too often I wind up with a very frustrated 9 year old who's upset that he can't win/progress because the game basically requires in-app purchases to be playable for any length of time.
I don't know if there's a very workable solution, but I think devs should be required to clear notification that "advancement or continued play in this game requires in app purchases; the total cost of this game exceeds its initial purchase price."
Unfortunately the app-store economics were built around the "99 cent" app and apparently its either not viable to make a decent title at that price point nor is it possible to get the sales volume for $5.99 games that actually offer playability when you're competing against a sea of nominal 99 cent games.
From the point of view of the developer by TheDarkMaster · 2014-03-12 23:59 · Score: 2

Uhh... How I would manage to make the application differentiate the father of the child, if the child in question has the credentials and passwords of his father? Is not possible yet to perform miracles.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:I don't know about the android store, but by sandytaru · 2014-03-13 01:28 · Score: 2

See, that requires forethought and good parenting, two things that in-app developers depend on you not having.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.