Apple hit with class-action suit over iPhone in-app game currency purchases - Page 2

You seem to be the only commenter in this thread capable of reading comprehension. +1 to you for recognizing the 15 minute window being the problem, and now being fixed.


This is inaccurate. Once you'd entered your password to install a free app there was no way to log out to disallow in app purchases, even rebooting one's phone left the authorization for in-app purchases active for 15 minutes.

This lawsuit makes about as much sense as suing Amazon.com because you left your browser open and someone, whether a child or not, bought stuff with your account. There should never be a circumstance where a child has a password for buying anything. They can buy R-rated movies or explicit music with that same password too. Maybe there aren't a lot of kids doing that but it's just another example of why letting your kids have that kind of power is just irresponsible.

You can use multiple accounts on iOS devices so you could still share apps. Wouldn't be quite as easy unless they are all sync'd from the same Mac in which case it really would be simple.

Incidentally as others have pointed out, you can turn off In-app purchasing in settings.

Far be it from me to suggest Americans have and more of their rights taken away from them, but at this point, would it really be such a bad idea to require a license to be a parent? You know, like a marriage license is required to get married.. Only, the parent license will test you to make sure you're not just flooding the population with another mouth-breathing moron that'll screw up the system for the rest of us?

Seriously though.. If you don't take the time to understand that giving a child an adults device without using or even looking into parental controls could have undesired effects then it's your own fault. Suing Apple is a short term solution to a long term problem; bad parenting. Educate yourself before you go giving your kids a device that you have no idea what it's capable of.

Wow, so Apple has built in parental controls that allow users to block in-app purchases, but this schlep is either too stupid or too lazy to configure them. And now that Darling has downloaded 200 smacks worth of in-game upgrades, what to do!?! I know, let's sue Apple, because after all, they'll settle before going to court, right?

And, no, Restrictions isn't a new feature. These "parental controls" have been around since 2007, and disabling in-app purchases since Apple began allowing them.

Don't blame Apple, the game makers or anyone else for these purchases when you clearly don't know how to use the device!

They could have just done this:

The best part is that the restrictions access code can be different from both your unlock code and iTunes password. This lawsuit has no legs and the fact that Apple now requires a password for in app purchases (even though they already provided a means of disabling them) means that they are attentive to the needs of the their customers and not negligent like the lawsuit alleges.

Retina scans! the iPhone 4 could do it...

You want us to believe that a 12 year old - or even a 9 year old - wouldn't understand that when something says "Buy this for $x" that it would actually cost money?

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to him.

Before accusing others of not reading (comprehending) an article, perhaps you should read it better first. It quite clearly says in the article, quoting the lawsuit itself


Tthey are suing over the current system that requires entering the password for in-app purchases. Which means they are suing Apple because they gave their child a password tied to their credit card account. They are either suing over their own poor parenting skills or they staged the whole thing (their child making in app purchases) so they could sue Apple. It's been clearly shown in this thread that there is in fact a mechanism in place already to block in app purchases.

user error...

[QUOTE=jb510;1848423]You seem to be the only commenter in this thread capable of reading comprehension. +1 to you for recognizing the 15 minute window being the problem, and now being fixed.

um, no... the "problem" has been fixed, and in fact was changed late last year. The "problem" as it's being called was in fact a "feature" that Apple enabled because whiners were complaining that they, OMG had to actually enter their iTunes passwords multiple times to make multiple purchases. Apple should have ignored such lame cry babies in the first place.

It's ridiculous that patents are even doin this. Do they not know that you can actually block in-app purchases right in the settings in the restrictions?? They can do that and put their own different password on it. RIDICULOUS!!

Just like this. =>

anyone smart enough to file a lawsuit is also smart enough to at least take a look at the parental control settings. They quite clearly are just doing this for the money. Nothing more than attempted theft.

So his daughter racked up $200 in unauthorized app purchases he could have prevented with some parental oversight. His solution? Sue a corporation that will rack up God knows how much in lawyers fees!?

I downloaded City Story for free and played a little - as I went along there were notifications when I earned fake game money for tasks I completed to spend on fake stuff in the game. Then one popped up and it was honestly completely unclear to me (as a grown adult with my own credit card!) whether it was asking for real money or pretend money.

Lucky for me I did a quick google search and learned to disable that option but at the time it really felt like I almost got robbed. I gotta go with the Dad on this one. It's a scam. I could see idiots knowingly paying to speed up the progress in something like City Story but cmon - the Smurfs!?!?!

Bullshit. I have 2 girls that are 3 and 5 1/2. The 3 year old may be too young to understand, but my oldest knows that if she is playing w/the iPad and there is something she wants, she has to ask us. She knows she isn't allowed to buy anything herself, in or out of game. Not explaining and enforcing rules on your children does not explain the need for a class action lawsuit. Some people need to take some fucking personal responsibility.

it's called parenting for a reasonnot babysitting, not having a pet...etc.

imo most 'parents' aren't up to the task. in fact, i'd wager to say that most adults are only barely capable of going to work, using their smart phones, and watching t.v.

expecting them to go beyond that is really asking a lot.

Thanks for wasting taxpayer dollars for frivolous lawsuits. Same with the Barry Bonds trial. Absolute waste of money.

This will be summarily tossed out, the quicker the better. It's not like these judges have empty dockets.

the prompt to put in your iTunes password tells you there is clearly a difference. If you don't want your child to use your credit card, you don't give them your iTunes password that is tied to the credit card.

The lawsuit is over the iTunes password being the same for an in App purchase as it is for every other purchase it can be used for when there already is an alternate password that can be used to block in-app purchases.

1-
I noticed that they do not sue the actual game developers. THEY are the ones who might be practicing "deceptive" practices. To my mind this shows they are not serious. They lawyers are lazy. If they were serious they would name all this game developers in the suit. It would have a much greater effect on the problem if the smaller pocket-ed developers had to defend against this practice. But they clearly just want to go for what they see as easy money.

2-
Apple is responsible for all the apps they post? OK So if you buy a phone from Amazon, and the telco overcharges you, then you should sue Amazon?

3-
So you give your Amazon account number to your kid and they go and buy $2000 in new toys. You want to sue Amazon? Gimme a break!

I agree. It's a reasonable law suit but the target should be the game maker

While morally yes the lawsuit should target the game maker, in reality lawyers would always try to grab the biggest pot of money by suing big companies like Apple. It's just how things work, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but it's just hard to find good lawyers that's not greedy.

Only because you tell them they have to ask you. (good kids).
However, if they have the password, the only thing that stops them from making purchases is their conscience.

Really? They download that many apps?

So even you are not positive?

Why not simply give them their own iTunes account with no credit card linked?
They can get all the free apps they want but with no CC linked, even accidental in-app purchases could not be made.

for 99.9% of these games, the add ons are just to speed up the game. You can play without them if you want.

And no where did Jobs ban these kinds of add ons to free games. Because they are just add ons.

In the end, this is about the parents doing their jobs. They didn't bother to look at the game or at the software to see what kinds of restrictions there are. Now they are being bit over it. In the end, they are not likely to really win anything. Especially considering that Apple has time and again given up their cut of the money to refund these folks. the most that might happen is that the courts tell Apple to require that the password must be entered every time you want to buy/download anything even if you just put in your password 30 seconds ago. And maybe to require the games to put a giant screaming "THIS APP HAS IN APP PURCHASE FEATURES THAT COST REAL MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!" on the App Store info page as well as on the top of the app and require the person to confirm that yes they really want to pay (perhaps even putting in some kind of secondary passcode like the last 4 of the credit card on file).



They already do. You can set up an 'allowance' account or set up an account by redeeming an itunes gift card. Both of which never have to see a credit card directly on the account (just on the account that is sending the allowance). ANd I believe you can still have the accounts linked so as the parent you can block the child from seeing explicit, rated r etc materials.

That's the first thing I thought of: This guy uses a Save Password option, hands the phone to his kid, then wants to sue somebody for HIS mistake. If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" should not aso ignorance of basic security precautions? I wouldn't be surprised if he fails to lock his phone with a passcode, either. Maybe he can sue Apple for that.

Here's an idea. You want to give your kid the password to an itunes account. Get a PREPAID credit card. When it runs out it runs out.

I once got a $20 prepaid visa and opened an itunes account. Due to apples "days later invoicing" i was able to purchase over $100 worth of content without even trying. I just figured they'd cut me off. Their loss. Thanks Apple

You don't need a credit card to maintain an iTunes Store account.

Rather than using a prepaid credit card, you can buy iTunes/App Store gift cards and recharge your account that way. No setup fee like prepaid credit cards often have. It's pure cash.

Even though I have a real credit card tied to my iTunes Store account, I actually prefer to use gift cards.

A.) It acts as a budget of sorts, and B.) I don't have to deal with a ton of micro credit card charges in Quicken.

I play Farmville on the iPad, if I had to buy it (so that they could do in-app purchases) I wouldn't, and neither would a ton of other people. I've also NEVER paid for any content within Farmville, as I don't have to.

It's not REQUIRED to buy the full version or any in-app purchase to play, and it is FREE to download the app (seeing as it costs nothing) therefore it perfectly fits the description of free.

Here are some other examples of alleged free, which can legally be called free:

• In the UK "Freeview" television still requires that you PAY for a TV license.
• Ad-supported apps, you pay with your personal information.
• Facebook apps, again you pay with your personal information.
• Free bus passes for the elderly (they're still paid for).

The scary memory of the BBC TV programme "Jamie's School Dinners" stays with me now even after the passage of about 4 years. It was the bit where a mother turned to Jamie and the camera and uttered the immortal line "I suppose being a parent means sometime you have to say no".

The whole in-app purchase aspect of this legal action is a diversion because if they could download extra trinkets that cost real money then they could download an app, a feature film or music too. Why the focus on in-app purchase alone?

It's not yet a legal requirement that children need access to their parents' credit facilities. Somehow, I've managed to live over 50 years without once ever being permitted access to my parents' bank account. Funny that ...

Time to start a class action case to remove the participants of this class actions children from their care are they are obviously too stupid to teach them to be responsible for their actions and even be responsible for controlling mediums they make available to their kids.

The fact that they are obviously too retarded to check their emails for receipts from Apple too.

Investigating this further you will probably find that these parents are probably high school drop outs with a low IQ and feel that the world owes them a living. They, along with the lawyers should be rounded up and shot, targeted gene pool cleansing.

I don't care for games where you need to buy virtual currency with real money, but there is no way this happens unless the parents are giving the kids their password and the kids confirm the purchase. Nothing misleading here. Nobody is preying on children. Sounds like just a frivolous suit that plays on peoples fear of preying on children.

But you can play these game for free. You don't have to make in app purchases to play those games. If you are stupid enough to give your child you itunes password then you should be liable for for the charges. With that password they can also download any number of paid apps. Even if they don't give their child their password and download the app without knowing what it does then that's your fault. This is another frivolous lawsuit. I truly believe that this country's court system is being abused and that the attorneys (yes attorneys) should have to not only pay the costs of the defendant, but also the costs of the court if the court finds the suit without merit.

[QUOTE=cmf2;1848432]They could have just done this:


This is the very first thing I did when I got my iPhone before I set-up e-mail or anything else. That way my son would not make any accidental purchases.

The only reason Apple is being sued is because of their deep pockets, although I would think Capcom has some money.

I can't see any outcome for this lawsuit other than an immediate dismissal. There maybe something in the EULA that stops it before we even get to questions of poor parenting.

You know a person can contact customer service and ask for a refund if you downloaded an app by mistake. I know this because I had this happen with my iPad. I accidentally downloaded the MLB app for the iPhone instead of the iPad. In opening the app I realized the mistake and downloaded the iPad version. I then contacted their store support explaining my mistake and they promptly credited my account. Apple is not that unreasonable when it comes to mistakes--I would think even if you were stupid enough to give your kid your password.

As long as the base program doesn't require purchases to be useful, and the description says there are paid optional add-ons, I really don't see why the base app shouldn't be in the free section.


Because something can be misused doesn't make it bad or evil.


I don't want to lend weight to this part of the argument, but Amazon groups transactions, but I think the window is about an hour, and they send email notifications. I don't recall ever getting an emailed receipt for any purchase from iTunes. It might be an option somewhere. It's probably not something people think about until it's too late.


Children to seem to take 10 miles if you give them an inch. A teen might ask if they can borrow the car to go to the grocery store and they might take the car to Ohio.


I don't think there is a credit card tied to a Facebook account.


Nice, thanks for posting the picture.

Since apple fixed the 15 minutes rule that allowed to buy without asking for the password for 15 minutes after you enter your password for the first time, I dont see how Apple could be sued for this.

On the other hand, why dont they sue the app dev instead of Apple?

There is a difference.

Amazon doesn't claim that their store is differentiated from other stored bacause it is part of a nice friendly and safe ecosystem. They claim it is a safe online store like other safe online stores.

Apple, on the other hand does differentiate itself from other stores. It advertizes that its ecosystem is better than other ecosystems because it overseen by Apple. And that Apple makes it friendly and safe for its users.

Amazon doesn't advertize items as free and then as soon as you start using them, you are suprised that you can/need to pay more money. Well sometimes they do. But it very clear at the time of purchase that such and such is not included and that you will need to pay for it once you get the product.

Also, at Amazon, you get an email confirmation immediately that a purchased happened. You can then cancel that purchase if you wanted to. You can also return your purchases unopened for a refund. All things you can't do with in-app purchases.

Anyway, I don't think you can use Amazon in the way you stated as an example.

I do not mean this personally, but to everyone....


Where the hell have you been, of course you can sue anyone or any company for your poor parenting skills. This has been going on for a long time, anytime a kid gets hurt or cost the parent money and god forbid the child dies you can pretty much guaranty a law suite is coming, especially when the parents did not act like a parent.

The best example of this is when I lived in CA, I was at friends house and saw on the side of a kiddy pools a warning that said use only under "competent supervision" At the time I though it was kind of strange warning since those warning use to say use under "adult supervision" meaning do not let your kid play in the pool alone.

Well a few years later a case came to court where something happen to a kid and the toy or what ever it was had the competent supervision warning. The company when sued went on to prove the person that allow something to happen to the kid was the one who was at fault since they were not competent to allow the kid to use the item.

Well the judge went nuts on the company and said they are not allow to stand behind that warning since all they had to do to prove the person was incompetent was to show the they allow the kid to be injured.

Again blame the courts for not holding parent accountable for their kids actions, I wish the competent supervision warning would have held up.

The App Store is "not safe"? How exactly is that? At least with Apple, I know who I'm buying from unlike Amazon where sometimes it's through them (so I get free shipping) and sometimes it's not and hope the 3rd party is reputable.


On any free App that does in-App purchasing, there is a bar at the top that read "Top In-App Purchases". Typically that's a tip-off. Like I've said before, no free App I've ever used has required me to do an in-App purchase unless it is a clearly marked a "Lite" version and then even still I can choose not to purchase it.


Yes. Yes I do. Plus I'm "tech savvy" which is all the more reason why I would never give my kids a password that protects my credit card because I know the consequences. That's one of the problems with this country these days, parents don't have time to be parents. They just say "go sit in front of <insert some tech or activity> and stop bothering me".