Federal Court Allows Class-Action Suit Against Apple Over In-App Purchases 279
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."
iCoupons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
And if $200 is draining your credit card, maybe its time to rethink having an iPhone.
Re:$5m fir $200? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't understand the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases." Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store. And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions.
The parent is responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't understand the case... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe its time to rethink having an iPhone
Best suggestion I've heard so far.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:2, Insightful)
This.
Look, I normally count as the last one to defend Apple for anything, but seriously?
Guy gives his daughter a way to rack up bills, she does so, he pleads ignorance. Gimme a frickin' break! "Parenting" means more than buying an expensive pacifier.
Pay the damned bill, spank the little brat raw, and both of you take a lesson from this.
Re:I don't understand the case... (Score:2, Insightful)
You trust them with something because you teach them responsibility.
Should I be able to sue a car company if my child crashes my car? Should I be able to sue Bieber because he entices my child to buy his albums? This is purely a case about personal responsibility and it is the parent's responsibility to endow responsibility in their children, and the must deal with the consequences together.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't understand the case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, given that the walled garden has controls that stop someone getting at the tools, and have separate controls that prevent purchases in the first place (parental controls on iOS devices, password to AppleID needed to make purchases in the first place) then I'm not sure what the problem is?
That Apple didn't tell this guy he should have maybe enabled parental controls for in app/any purchases? That maybe he shouldn't have linked his credit card to the Apple ID his kid uses?
How is this different to some guy suing Mastercard because his kid ran up a giant bill during a spending spree if you have authorised him to make purchases on your account with no limit?
As has been pointed out numerous times in other replies, this occurred before Apple added any of that functionality to iOS. At the time this happened, there was a 15 minute grace period after entering your password where it was not required again. There wasn't a way to turn that off. The best you could do was log out of the app store after the app downloaded and installed. That assumed you were aware of the issue in the first place. While you and I are aware of the issue, we are not your typical iPod owner either.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the Garden (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The parent is responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
The class action is for parents who suffered losses before Apple made the changes. But as a parent, I would argue that Apple has not sufficiently solved the problem. In-app purchases do not belong in games targeted at young children. These apps should not be allowed on the App Store. Perhaps he is going forward with the lawsuit despite being reimbursed personally because Apple are still allowing young children to be targetted in this way, and the default setup of an iDevice still allows unlimited purchases to be made for 15 minutes after a parent enters their iTunes password without warning them of this.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't you have to enter your password? (Score:3, Insightful)
The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
1. I have never seen an iOS in-app purchase confirm dialog that wasn't quite explicit about charges.
2. Perhaps this is a chance for the child to learn that you don't just enter your password without thinking.
3. Perhaps this is a chance for the parent to learn a little about iOS security; which, if the parent had bothered to become familiar with their device, has completely adequate security measures [apple.com] to avoid this sort of thing, including, but certainly not limited to, restricting in-app purchases, and even adjusting the "password timeout".
At some point, the parent has to act like a responsible adult, and not just blame poor parenting and willful ignorance on a company who has instituted measures to prevent children from racking up bills on the parent's credit card.
This lawsuit is entirely frivolous. If this had happened on Android, slashdotters would have said "Well, the app said it wanted permissions to allow in-app purchases when it installed..." or some such.
More Slashdot Click-bait. Bad Slashdot! Bad! No, No, No!