Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Fighting FTC Over In-App Purchases Fine

An anonymous reader writes One of the common problems of the smartphone generation has been parents who given their phones to children, who then rack up hundreds of dollars of in-app purchases without the parents' knowledge. The FTC smacked Apple with a fine for this, and Google is facing a lawsuit as well. Now, Amazon is the latest target, having received a complaint from the FTC demanding a similar settlement to Apple's. Amazon, however, is not willing to concede the fine; they plan to fight it. Amazon said, "The Commission's unwillingness to depart from the precedent it set with Apple despite our very different facts leaves us no choice but to defend our approach in court (PDF). The main claim in the draft complaint is that we failed to get customers' informed consent to in-app charges made by children and did not address that problem quickly or effectively enough in response to customer complaints. We have continually improved our experience since launch, but even at launch, when customers told us their kids had made purchases they didn't want, we refunded those purchases."

25 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. It's Intended by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no doubt in my mind this was part of the ROI model when they were thinking up ways to pilfer your dollars in somewhat covert ways... there is also no doubt they can make this effort much more transparent for the same reason.

    1. Re:It's Intended by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Informative

      In app purchases should be banned. They're horrible for the industry, in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!). At the very least they should have a maximum any one user can spend before everything becomes free.

    2. Re:It's Intended by maeka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!)

      Not that I disagree with you, but what part of the gaming industry isn't preying off of exactly the same neurons as gambling? Nearly every game, be you buying the game itself, in-game purchases, or DLC, is getting its revenue almost entirely due to exploiting pleasure-seeking behavior.

    3. Re:It's Intended by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in some cases they're no better than gambling (ie: buy tokens to feed into this jackpot like system to win a random digital item!)

      Not that I disagree with you, but what part of the gaming industry isn't preying off of exactly the same neurons as gambling? Nearly every game, be you buying the game itself, in-game purchases, or DLC, is getting its revenue almost entirely due to exploiting pleasure-seeking behavior.

      Gaming typically relies on skill, not chance. If you play most games long enough, you'll be able to consistently beat certain levels. If you win at the roulette wheel, you're no more likely than before to win again. That's the difference. Otherwise, "exploiting pleasure-seeking behavior" could be stretched to describe every last industry in existence beyond the sales of food, water, shelter, and basic utilities.

      With the model of directly purchasing the game itself (and no in-game purchases, like standard PC/console gaming) you can at least read about the game and have a reasonable expectation about what you are paying for. The real problem with in-game purchases is that the game is "free" or low-cost in the most technical sense, but after you invest many hours advancing the game you find that you can't really prosper without making additional purchases. It could be construed as a form of bait-and-switch.

      The other problem would be that many of these games are aimed at children who make purchases the parents later get stuck with, but this problem begins in the home and should be solved within the home by actual parenting. That's not as convenient as using the tablet like a cheap babysitter but it would certainly be more worthwhile. If you wanted to solve this by government action, that's simple too: declare that these purchases are contractual in nature (the parent agreed to pay charges made to the phone bill or whatever) and that minors who make them cannot be held to a contract, therefore the companies cannot collect money when children make them. *Poof* - end of shitty business model.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:It's Intended by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The pleasure seeking isn't the problem, it's the money->chance->loop. When you buy a game outright/DLC/etc it's a fixed cost no matter what actual mechanics are in the game. The moment you buy tokens (or gems or whatever name they want to put on it) and you're feeding it into something that has any sort of random generator it creates an entirely different dynamic. Companies would have a vested interest in tweaking the "randomness" of an item/game mechanic/etc.

      Same issue arises with non-random items. Take a game that sells health packs - the developers could tweak damage output without the user knowing to encourage more purchases.

    5. Re:It's Intended by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      If you cant control yourself, then its your problem, not the app makers. Perhaps you need to seek professional help for your lack of control/addiction.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:It's Intended by mysidia · · Score: 2

      What is so magically different about showing me an advert in the game for something else that it needs laws creating to stop it?

      Because 'paying for more action' during gameplay is fundamentally the same as a slot machine at a casino; there's a big difference between placing an advertisement VS an "instant in-game purchase" experience of one of thousands of unlockables.

      It should be treated exactly like casino gaming or other forms of paid gaming. (Personally, I am not in favor of it being banned completely --- but it should be heavily regulated, and the vendor should be responsible for 200% of the amount of unauthorized purchases by a minor)

      If I go into a bar and order a beer does the bar owner have to hide all the more expensive beers, food etc so that I can't be tempted with it. Should the waitress be locked up if she asks if I'd like another?

      Buying a beer at a bar is not merely monetized human behavior; there is actually a tangible physical good being purchased, which had to be manufactured, and a significant portion of the product's price at the bar is the cost of materials required to manufacture that unit.

      Furthermore, the bartender is not going to just give you instant gratification of a drink with no questions asked ---- you have to present physical credentials; if you are a 5 year old, you cannot go to a bar and buy one.

      Humans also cannot drink a very large amount of beer... so there are natural physical limitations on how many 'expensive beers' you can order and drink during a visit.

  2. It's not just the refund by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Amazon's problem is going to be that just refunding the purchases doesn't help the parents. If the kid maxes out the credit-card on in-app purchases, the parents have to deal not just with those purchases but the fees and interest from over-limit charges on the card and/or the additional costs associated with any declined charges (eg. if I pay a bill on-line using my card and the charge is declined, I get hit for late fees and possibly service disconnections). Having this happen when you're out-of-town (eg. the kid does this while the family's on vacation, and when you go to check out of the hotel you can't pay your hotel bill and you have to figure out why without being able to check your accounts on-line to see what unexpected charges are there). The only acceptable way of handling things is what Amazon should've done from the start: once parental controls are turned on in an app, all actions that would cause a charge or affect parental controls always require a PIN (and ideally there'd be an option to say "don't allow charges period until parental controls are turned off again").

    1. Re:It's not just the refund by Xenx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People aren't willing to accept responsibility for themselves and their kids. We shouldn't be forcing the companies to accept the responsibility instead. If you don't agree with how Amazon does it, don't buy their devices or use their appstore. If they feel they're losing too many customers based on their business practices.. they'll change them. Either way, they shouldn't be targeted by the FTC.

    2. Re:It's not just the refund by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose it depends on how old the kids are. But really, if the kid is old enough to have their own phone then the parents need to do some better parenting. The first step I would take is to give them a Tracfone. Don't like being uncool? Learn that actions have consequences.

    3. Re:It's not just the refund by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 3, Informative

      "People aren't willing to accept responsibility for themselves and their kids" Buillshit. The practice is deceptive and industry is play on the ignorance of the consumer.

    4. Re:It's not just the refund by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Answer the question. In what way is what you suggest better?

      Right now you are blaming those parents that have been caught out by unknowing kids rather than the businesses who created their business models intending that exact thing.

      At the moment you are presenting no reason that wouldn't also say phishing and spamming are OK and should be allowed. That you think that people that aren't 100 per cent in control of everything 100% of the time deserve to be ripped off. And that's somehow good.

    5. Re:It's not just the refund by Xenx · · Score: 2

      Seriously? Personal accountability should always be first and foremost. You, as a person, should be responsible for your actions. You're suggesting that the companies should be forced to be accountable for you. You're saying it's ok for our populace to not care they don't know the first thing about what they're doing. Someone else will take care of it for them.

    6. Re:It's not just the refund by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Right now you are blaming those parents that have been caught out

      Yes. Right where the blame belongs.

      We arent talking about fraud here. Amazon isn't pretending that the in-app purchases are free and then charging people anyways. Quite the contrary.

      If you really dont want to be responsible for your actions, then let me take control of your life. You will love it. Living in a room with no windows (sunlight gives you cancer) or electricity (electricity is dangerous.) The door is locked because wandering around the world is dangerous. You will earn food by performing simple safe tasks for me. No plumbing because that might be dangerous. Clothing wont e allowed because you might get tangled. The walls will be padded because I cant trust that you will understand the sign that says dont repeatedly slam your head into the wall. All nice and safe. You. Will. Love. It.

      If you doubt that you will love it, then maybe you should change your stance on personal fucking responsibility .

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nope, they need the penalty.

    The Amazon AppStore app seems to have an update every two weeks. Every time it updates itself, it resets the values for IAP and parental controls. You need to manually go in after every update, disable IAP and confirm with the password, then manually reset the parental controls and confirm with the password. EVERY FREAKING TIME.

    There was one instance (that I know of) that I didn't reset the parental controls and IAP flags after an update, and sure enough, that was when the kids discovered it and went on a spending spree.

    NO EXCUSE for resetting the flags every update. They know about it. It isn't a bug, it is a feature that enables profits.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Glad we didn't have this in the 70's. I don't think my sister or I would have survived the beating.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is next, blame Ford because your kid was able to steal your keys off your dresser and wreck the car while you are sleeping?

      ...if Ford made the key fob in the shape of a cartoon character with a voice chip that kept saying "Hey kids! Pick me up and lets go for a drive" then, maybe.

      Yes, parents should take responsibility for their kids - but that doesn't give businesses the right to exploit their slightest lapse.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    3. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the parental controls do not work then indeed the company should be blamed. and resetting the password on updates is a bug. what if Ford came with seatbelts on the backseats that needed to be re-fastened by the soccer-mom at random intervals to avoid them not working in case of emergency? Cars are recalled for mistakes like that.

    4. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They know about it. It isn't a bug, it is a feature that enables profits.

      The games are purposefully engineered to be faulty so that you are *required* to make an in app purchase. And with the 'one click' nature of the in app purchases, it is easy for the game to make a purchase for you - either by mistake or by design!

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      THIS!

      All of the excuses about how parents should know how the device works and blah blah blah cannot overcome this. Even if the parents do exactly what the scolds demand, Amazon goes behind their back and un-does it, contrary to reasonable expectation.

    6. Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent by dk20 · · Score: 2

      Oh boy, you resorted to name calling so you clearly won the argument.

  4. It's Intended by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem here is that parents/kids don't have enough authentication to block purchases being made by the wrong person... there really should be better security like face recognition to say "Uhm, kid, that costs money!" or "Parent, you can't spend your kid's money for them!"

  5. Re:um... how bout... by analien7901 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Partially agree with you here. It's a new age and these 'expensive toys' are quickly becoming the needed tools in life; teaching your kids how to use them and the consequences of their actions is a great lesson for any child. Teaching yourself how they are, and can be, used is an even bigger lesson; one that a lot of parents fail at and then blame someone else. Who, in their responsible mind, would give a child a device that can be used to spend money? Yes, there's some checks and balances in place, but those checks and balances fail all the time (which is why my un-signed credit card can be used to purchase things without asking to see my Id 95% of the time). If you give your kid a credit card and put them in a candy store, they're going to max it out. Is that the store owner's fault? No! If you want your kids to be able to purchase those in-app purchases, set up an account for them with a specific amount on the card (Google Wallet is a very good option with its Master Card option). It's called an allowance, a concept that's been around for hundreds of years. You don't give an allowance by writing and signing a blank check. People (who most parents are) need to start learning the technology they use, where its downfalls are and how to get around them. If Amazon's in-app purchase policy is 'enter your pin and it's OK to purchase for 15 minutes', learn to deal with that or use a different system. If Amazon's updates cause resetting of in-app purchase flags, learn to deal with it. Part of dealing with it is to inform Amazon that their policy is broken, but it's their policy to make; if you don't like it, move on to the next or learn how to deal with it to fit your needs.

  6. Re:Apple forced cc and password for free apps by jonbryce · · Score: 2

    I opened my apple account with an iTunes gift card. That way my maximum loss is limited to whatever is left of the £15 balance on the card. I have purchased a couple of apps with some of the credit.

  7. Re:Irresponsible parents are part of the problem h by Joosy · · Score: 2

    We didn't give our son a credit card. We didn't give him a cell phone. We gave him a Kindle Fire HD, and had no idea that by default he would be able to buy things with real money without our needing to put our password in.

    After getting a huge charge from in app purchases I complained to Amazon and was immediately and cheerfully given a refund, with instructions for how to turn on the setting to require password for in app purchases.

    Amazon knew what it was doing when they made the default setting "no password required for in app purchases". I'd be happy to see them get a massive fine for that greedy and disgusting decision.

    --
    I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!