[Lorric]

Replying to all of it, consumers shouldn't have to deal with this - smartphone software is being developed in a manner that specifically allows, if not tacitly seeks, this type of abuse in order to make money.  While parents have an obligation to protect their information (through security settings they have to manually enable), the app developers have an obligation to ensure the contracts they are offering are legally-valid, a step so absurdly simple the only reason they don't do it is because it makes them less money if kids can't abuse their parents' accounts.

Exactly.

[Lorric]

I might agree with Fury and The E if children (under 18) were not legally banned from making purchases on credit cards / phone accounts, particularly credit cards / phone accounts in their parents' names.

But here's the thing: The store system cannot determine who is using the device at the time. If the account is logged in and the convenience functions turned on, then the assumption has to be that the account holder is driving. So as far as they're concerned, the entire transcation was perfectly legal. If the transaction is then disputed, how do you determine whether the dispute was legitimate, or whether it is a fraud attempt by the user?

In short:  these microtransactions largely rely on ignorance at the user end to make money, and actively do not prevent credit card fraud - and legally, a child authorizing a transaction on their parents' card is fraud.

I absolutely agree! But here's the thing: As long as these practices aren't forbidden, it falls to the customer to protect himself. If the customer fails to do so and then gets bitten, it's something the customer has to deal with, not the various regulatory agencies.

No, no, NO.

These companies are sharks blatantly and obviously trying to screw people, who is going to spend this kind of money on this garbage?

[MP-Ryan]

But here's the thing: The store system cannot determine who is using the device at the time. If the account is logged in and the convenience functions turned on, then the assumption has to be that the account holder is driving. So as far as they're concerned, the entire transcation was perfectly legal. If the transaction is then disputed, how do you determine whether the dispute was legitimate, or whether it is a fraud attempt by the user?

Does someone making a phone purchase with your credit card without your consent invalidate your ability to dispute the charge?  No.  The store system could contain default security features that require a password or some additional authorization to make financial; transactions.  In short, the convenience settings should not be the default, nor should apps be permitted to tie directly to store systems without a requirement to enter a password or account confirmation first.

I absolutely agree! But here's the thing: As long as these practices aren't forbidden, it falls to the customer to protect himself. If the customer fails to do so and then gets bitten, it's something the customer has to deal with, not the various regulatory agencies.

Nope.  Regulatory agencies exist to regulate abusive business practices.  This is an abusive business practices that relies on the technical incompetence of end-users (and flaws in the story system) and therefore falls under the purview of regulatory agencies to eliminate.  Furthermore, businesses offering contracts have a due diligence requirement (and should have an inherent interest) in ensuring contracts are legal to ensure they get paid.  Right now, they can offer illegal contracts via technical loopholes and still get paid out for it.  That is bull****.

[Aardwolf]

1. It's exploitative. Ok, we get it.

2. The parents are still stupid for effectively handing their credit card and authentication info to a minor.

[Flipside]

I don't even let Steam hold onto my card details, it becomes too easy with one-click buying to think '**** it, it's only 20 quid', adding the extra minimal effort of getting my card and typing in the details at least gives me time to get over the initial 'want' impulse and think 'do I really want to spend that money?'.

[Lorric]

I don't even let Steam hold onto my card details, it becomes too easy with one-click buying to think '**** it, it's only 20 quid', adding the extra minimal effort of getting my card and typing in the details at least gives me time to get over the initial 'want' impulse and think 'do I really want to spend that money?'.

He he. I never use the "quick buy" options on sites, I always like going the long winded way, but it's more in case of a misclick somewhere to give me time to notice.

EDIT: I wouldn't want to be typing in my details though like that, more chance of being picked up by a keylogger.

[General Battuta]

I doubt any company in question here said 'let's set this up so kids can spend a billion dollars'; they know the charges will be reversed. That's not an exploitative practice.

What they are designing for is whales. Much of the F2P/microtransaction economy is built around making sure that whales (the guys who spend a LOAD of money on microtransactions, whether because of their wealth or their mental illnesses) can spend money really easily and really quickly.

[Flipside]

I don't even let Steam hold onto my card details, it becomes too easy with one-click buying to think '**** it, it's only 20 quid', adding the extra minimal effort of getting my card and typing in the details at least gives me time to get over the initial 'want' impulse and think 'do I really want to spend that money?'.

He he. I never use the "quick buy" options on sites, I always like going the long winded way, but it's more in case of a misclick somewhere to give me time to notice.

EDIT: I wouldn't want to be typing in my details though like that, more chance of being picked up by a keylogger.

Thing is, if someone gets my details through a KeyLogger or the like, I've got card insurance, but if I spend like an idiot, I don't have insurance for that

[Lorric]

I don't even let Steam hold onto my card details, it becomes too easy with one-click buying to think '**** it, it's only 20 quid', adding the extra minimal effort of getting my card and typing in the details at least gives me time to get over the initial 'want' impulse and think 'do I really want to spend that money?'.

He he. I never use the "quick buy" options on sites, I always like going the long winded way, but it's more in case of a misclick somewhere to give me time to notice.

EDIT: I wouldn't want to be typing in my details though like that, more chance of being picked up by a keylogger.

Thing is, if someone gets my details through a KeyLogger or the like, I've got card insurance, but if I spend like an idiot, I don't have insurance for that

You're covered 

Let the insurance company get burned! 

[Klaustrophobia]

I doubt any company in question here said 'let's set this up so kids can spend a billion dollars'; they know the charges will be reversed. That's not an exploitative practice.

What they are designing for is whales. Much of the F2P/microtransaction economy is built around making sure that whales (the guys who spend a LOAD of money on microtransactions, whether because of their wealth or their mental illnesses) can spend money really easily and really quickly.

i don't share your optimistic appraisal of the assholery of these companys.  i think (well, hope rather) that you're probably right in that it isn't the primary goal of the practice, but they're sure as hell going to accept it as a side effect and not willingly stop it.  at worst, nothing bad happens to them other than they have to return ill-gotten gains.  at best, they get to keep the hefty percentage of it that was either not reported at all or that the bank had to eat the loss on.

this needs to be attacked from all sides.  the parents need to be aware that these kinds of assholes exist and take reasonable steps to guard against this.  including slapping the snot out of their kids when they do this kind of thing.  still, there is NO good reason to allow businesses to exploit people like this. 

[General Battuta]

I wouldn't call that an 'optimistic appraisal' at all. A lot of the microtransaction methodology is extremely predatory.

[MatthTheGeek]

Ultimately, yes. They gave their kids what amounts to free access to their bank accounts and then left them alone with a drug dealer. That kind of stupidity needs to have punishment attached to it.

I am at a loss for words.

You are cold and hard and unfeeling.

The parents wouldn't be the only ones who would suffer, while the "drug dealer" would grow fat on the money and others would be encouraged to follow in their footsteps.

Welcome to real life, enjoy your stay.

This is just a specific case of Darwin Award. Parents be stupid, parents be paying the heavy price.

No, no, NO.

These companies are sharks blatantly and obviously trying to screw people, who is going to spend this kind of money on this garbage?

The people who win Darwin Awards on a daily basis. IE an astoundingly large percentage of the human population.

You sound like you need a serious reality check, my friend.

BTW, Santa doesn't exist. Neither do unicorns. Sorry.

[Lorric]

Ultimately, yes. They gave their kids what amounts to free access to their bank accounts and then left them alone with a drug dealer. That kind of stupidity needs to have punishment attached to it.

I am at a loss for words.

You are cold and hard and unfeeling.

The parents wouldn't be the only ones who would suffer, while the "drug dealer" would grow fat on the money and others would be encouraged to follow in their footsteps.

Welcome to real life, enjoy your stay.

This is just a specific case of Darwin Award. Parents be stupid, parents be paying the heavy price.

No, no, NO.

These companies are sharks blatantly and obviously trying to screw people, who is going to spend this kind of money on this garbage?

The people who win Darwin Awards on a daily basis. IE an astoundingly large percentage of the human population.

You sound like you need a serious reality check, my friend.

BTW, Santa doesn't exist. Neither do unicorns. Sorry.

So if I screw you out of some cash, will you be like "Okay, I was stupid, take the cash." ?

[The E]

If you, personally, screw me over, I will use every method at my disposal to get my money back.

If I lose money because I was not thorough enough in evaluating a deal, then that's something I have to learn from.

The difference here is that in the first case, the other party has a clear criminal intent, while in the second case, the deal was legal but I failed to do the research on it or think it through rationally.

EDIT: The thing with microtransactions is that they're definitely legal. There's no false advertising or anything, you generally know exactly what you get before you make the purchase. Whether or not the product you get is worth it is highly subjective.

[Lorric]

If you, personally, screw me over, I will use every method at my disposal to get my money back.

If I lose money because I was not thorough enough in evaluating a deal, then that's something I have to learn from.

The difference here is that in the first case, the other party has a clear criminal intent, while in the second case, the deal was legal but I failed to do the research on it or think it through rationally.

So you'd just let case number two go? I don't know if you have kids, but for the purposes of this exercise, you do now! Imagine you're dead tired, and you've had a really stressful day. Your kid comes up and says he wants to buy some add on. You just want to rest, you figure it'll only be worth like a dollar or two and let them just for the peace and it turns out it was $100. Would you just be like ehhh, my fault. Or would you claim the cash back?

[MatthTheGeek]

You would buy the damn addon yourself. Your kid shouldn't even have the possibility to be able to buy it himself.

If you're too tired, just say you'll do it tomorrow / this week-end. You aren't the slave of your kid, that's not how parenting works.

[The E]

It would be my fault, and I would have to eat that loss.

BUT.

Since I am aware of these pitfalls, I wouldn't be in this position in the first place, because no kid of mine will get that kind of access to my financials until they're ready and understand what they are doing.

[Lorric]

You would buy the damn addon yourself. Your kid shouldn't even have the possibility to be able to buy it himself.

If you're too tired, just say you'll do it tomorrow / this week-end. You aren't the slave of your kid, that's not how parenting works.

I thought of a better one. Your kid tells you it costs $1. But it costs $100. Your kid is either lying or made a mistake. You buy the thing. Because it says $100, but you see what you expect to see, so you see $1.00.

It would be my fault, and I would have to eat that loss.

BUT.

Since I am aware of these pitfalls, I wouldn't be in this position in the first place, because no kid of mine will get that kind of access to my financials until they're ready and understand what they are doing.

Even though you'd know you could claim it back? You'd just take it on the chin? Really?

[MatthTheGeek]

I thought of a better one. Your kid tells you it costs $1. But it costs $100. Your kid is either lying or made a mistake. You buy the thing. Because it says $100, but you see what you expect to see, so you see $1.00.

Then you win a Darwin Award. Congratulations. Wear it proudly.

[Phantom Hoover]

you can just tell matth is the kind of person who thinks the darwin awards are funny can't you