Mother sues Google over kids’ apps after 5-year-old son buys $65 worth of virtual currency
03-17-2014
, 11:59 AM
03-17-2014
, 08:34 PM
Quote:
It's a real issue; the UK seems to be getting serious about kids games like this. There it will be resolved by the might of a government commission, here it will be through class-action suits.
(My Little Pony, ages 4+)
"There's an even higher tier at the very top end of the spectrum for amounts above $50, which Flurry says accounted for 5 percent among the total purchase numbers." [CNET]
Up in that $20 and $50+ range are the kids apps in question. Microsoft found that kids spent an average of £35, and eight-year-olds spend £60. The OP lawsuit gives the example of a game where the kid can buy animal treats for $99.
Even if the parent is an average Farmville player ($0.80 per month) and cognizant of the existence of in-app purchases, they're likely spending about $5. There's no reason for them to assume Habro or Nickelodeon is going to make a Spongebob game to shake them down for $100. At the very least the assumption would be that the game would confirm authorization for such a large amount. It's really weird that anyone would absolve them of responsibility as long as there's a parent to blame instead when it's so clear the industry's business model is premised on exploiting this.
(My Little Pony, ages 4+)
"There's an even higher tier at the very top end of the spectrum for amounts above $50, which Flurry says accounted for 5 percent among the total purchase numbers." [CNET]
Up in that $20 and $50+ range are the kids apps in question. Microsoft found that kids spent an average of £35, and eight-year-olds spend £60. The OP lawsuit gives the example of a game where the kid can buy animal treats for $99.
Even if the parent is an average Farmville player ($0.80 per month) and cognizant of the existence of in-app purchases, they're likely spending about $5. There's no reason for them to assume Habro or Nickelodeon is going to make a Spongebob game to shake them down for $100. At the very least the assumption would be that the game would confirm authorization for such a large amount. It's really weird that anyone would absolve them of responsibility as long as there's a parent to blame instead when it's so clear the industry's business model is premised on exploiting this.
