Slashdot Mirror


Lawsuit Reveals How Facebook Profited Off Confused Children: Report (salon.com)

Documents outlining how Facebook profited off children are expected to be made public soon, according to Reveal News of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), who requested the documents. From a report: In a report about the trove of previously-sealed documents, Reveal News explains that Facebook has previously faced lawsuits for failing to refund charges made by children playing games on Facebook. According to Reveal, the children did not know that their parent's credit card was stored on the platform when they clicked "buy," and in some cases, hundreds or even thousands of dollars were spent. In one case, the plaintiff, who is a child, spent several hundreds of dollars in just a few weeks. According to the report, more documents show "widespread confusion by children and their parents, who didn't understand Facebook continued to charge them as they played games."

14 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. I'm confused... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    I'm confused. I've never been a Facebook member, but from what I understood it was a free platform funded by advertising. Why does Facebook have anyone's credit card on file in the first place?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re: I'm confused... by sevenisloud · · Score: 2

      To buy advertising on Facebook (as a small business anyway) you pay by card, and you register the card to your personal account, from which you manage your business's page.

  2. Non-story: This happened on Google Play and iTunes by Echoez · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has happened on Google Play and the Apple iTunes store. This seems more like a story of the lack of imagination on the part of Google/Apple/Facebook when it came to making purchases on a device where the user is a registered adult. As much as I hate Facebook, this isn't a unique problem to them. My guess is that right now, similar situations happen with the Nintendo Switch store, Xbox, PS4 and others. The real fault lies in a combination of the parents not monitoring or securing their phones, and the original settings that allowed you to save a password for those stores and not require it upon each purchase. Facebook is guilty of many many things, but this seems overhyped.

  3. This is child abuse by xack · · Score: 2

    No beating around the bush, it is psychological abuse and theft getting childen into trouble.

  4. Null AND Void by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe from the very beginning, Facebook's business social model was and continues to be mostly illegal. In the US, minors can't sign contracts. Any contract with a minor is considered 'null and void'. Therefore minors can not agree to any ELU (end user license agreement). Thus any data collect by the activity of a minor is illegally obtained.

    1. Re:Null AND Void by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In the US, minors can't sign contracts. Any contract with a minor is considered 'null and void'.

      Tell that to all the people who signed up for student loans at 17.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Null AND Void by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe from the very beginning, Facebook's business social model was and continues to be mostly illegal. In the US, minors can't sign contracts. Any contract with a minor is considered 'null and void'. Therefore minors can not agree to any ELU (end user license agreement). Thus any data collect by the activity of a minor is illegally obtained.

      This is "stupidly wrong and wouldn't survive the first page of search results if you bothered to check before making the claim."

      In the US, minors can enter into contracts. By signing them. However, contract terms can't generally be enforced against minors. But they are still financially responsible for any goods or services they receive under the contract.

      The net result is that minors can cancel a contract at any time, regardless of the details of the contract, and they don't owe you anything at all if they return the goods, or if the service wasn't rendered for whatever reason including that their parents didn't let them finish doing it. So it is a really bad idea to engage in contracts with minors.

      And unless you're a lawyer, never move forwards to "thus." Those will always be wrong. Find out what lawyers say about it, choose one of those things, and repeat it. That's the only way to move from "words about the law" to "implications thereof."

    3. Re:Null AND Void by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      A) You may find that people under age 25 who received a student loan had their parents signature in multiple places, because you have to disclose family income. If not, then they signed other forms claiming to be an orphan or something.

      B) If they're still 17 and were admitted to the school and were given the loan without any parental approval, and they drop all their classes after the cutoff date for the term, they may indeed be able to challenge enforcement of the charges for that term. But obviously any classes they received credit for they'll still have to pay for.

      But they almost certainly filled out a form that required a parent signature.

    4. Re:Null AND Void by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

      The parents signed up for the loans, not the children. Again, law in the US does not recognize a contract with someone under the age of majority... usually 18
      https://law.freeadvice.com/gen...

  5. I'm assuming Facebook must have their own payment system ... surely most FB users don't have a credit card on file with them?

    OK, so for those who do ... why would you let your child play with your FB account then?

    Do you let your children play with your Amazon account? Or your physical wallet?

  6. Game on Facebook, charged through Facebook by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why does Facebook have anyone's credit card on file in the first place?

    If you read the first part of the article (ahem), it says:

    The child, referred to as âoeI.B.â in the case, did not know the social media giant had stored his momâ(TM)s payment information. As he continued to play the game, Ninja Saga, Facebook continued to charge his momâ(TM)s credit card, racking up several hundred dollars in just a few weeks.

    But unlike iOS or Android, where often kids overcharging without parents knowing about it and they get refunded, Facebook was apparently a lot less lenient about refunds.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Game on Facebook, charged through Facebook by PPH · · Score: 2

      The child, referred to as ÃoeI.B.Ã in the case

      I'd sue my parents for giving me a name that won't render properly on Slashdot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Re:Non-story: This happened on Google Play and iTu by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not the parents' fault. These companies were slow to add the concept of child accounts - accounts which had access to the apps purchased by the main account, but which had fewer privileges (including no purchase privilege). As a result, if you as a parent wanted to buy an app for your child's device, you had two choices. Either buy them on your account, and use your account on your child's device. Or buy them on your child's account (add your credit card info to their account). Both solutions end up with the child's device having access to purchase permission.

    To be fair, the companies added the ability to require a passcode to be punched in before a purchase would go through. But then as you say, they also gave you the option to have the device remember the passcode so you wouldn't have to punch it in all the time.

    Given that children are necessary for the species to survive, the proper solution is to allow child accounts. These are accounts which have access to apps purchased by the parent account, but which have no purchase privileges themselves. I can understand why the companies are reluctant to do it though - it means you can let your friends use the apps you buy by setting them up with a child account. Google added this capability a few years back (dunno about Facebook or Apple), but hasn't publicized it well. So many parents continue to use their main account on their children' devices.

  8. Not just facebook by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    I bitched at Microsoft Live for using the credit card number I gave them for Microsoft Live to let my daughter by Overwatch loot boxes without my permission, and they actually refunded my money -- but of course, I shut off my daughter's Microsoft Live after that. Yes, anybody offering in-game purchases should also offer parental controls, or face not getting paid -- children aren't legally able to enter into binding contracts.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.