or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › In-app purchasing suit against Apple allowed to proceed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

In-app purchasing suit against Apple allowed to proceed

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 
A California judge has denied Apple's request to dismiss a lawsuit leveled by a group of parents who are suing for relief after their children spent large amounts of money on in-app purchases.

Federal Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California will allow four of the class action lawsuit's five claims to move forward, dismissing only on regarding breach of good faith and fair dealing, reports The LA Times.

Originally filed in April 2011, the lawsuit alleges that Apple's implementation of in-app purchasing made it too easy for children to accrue fees on their parents' credit cards for game currencies without realizing they were spending real-world money.

According to the suit, charges ranging from $99 to more than $300 were made by the minors on credit cards associated with parents' iTunes accounts. The case revolves around certain "freemium" games that can be downloaded at no cost but offer in-game upgrades that can be priced at over $100. Apple asserts that parents are able to stop their children from making purchases.

At issue is the time span in which purchases can be made before a user is asked for their password. Parents would download an app or make a purchase and then hand the device to their unsupervised child who would be able to buy in-game items without reauthorization. Apple has since adjusted the password window as of iOS 4.3, however at the time a minor could make several purchases without a parent's knowledge or consent.



The so-called "bait-app" case was disputed by Apple on claims that the purchases were made under the contract of the company's Terms and Conditions which were agreed to upon shopping in the iTunes App Store.

The denial of dismissal means that the suit can move forward, though it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will be successful in extracting damages from the iPad maker.
post #2 of 76

For a company with an army of lawyers, Apple seems to be losing a lot more often than it wins.

post #3 of 76

Parents don't buy your kids a phone and give them your credit card.What a Joke these parents have no responsibility for there own actions in making a unwise choice to buy their children a phone so they blame someone else for there stupidity.

post #4 of 76

Parents owned these phones, didn't know that downloading a free app would allow children users to purchase in-app content. Apple was stupid to allow this, which explains why they changed the policy. With such an unforgiving attitude, you're obviously not a parent.

post #5 of 76

Yep I am have three children and they don't own phone's I want allow it.

 

post #6 of 76

Well this has been there since day 1 has it not?

 

in-app.png

post #7 of 76

Beside's only a person with a  unforgiving attitude sues someone else for there mistakes.

post #8 of 76
If the parents who are participating in this class action suit really were upset that they let their children use their phones logged into the App Store with no parental restrictions set, they would have sent an e-mail to iTunes support. And the friendly iTunes Support people would've issued them a full refund as a "one time courtesy".

Instead, these parents decided to sue.
"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."
Reply
"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."
Reply
post #9 of 76

In all fairness, Apple is doing a horrible job of raising their children.

post #10 of 76

Isn't that what parental controls are for?  Let's sue credit card companies for allowing kids to place orders online with their parents cards now.

post #11 of 76
I had that happen with my kids. They dowloaded $250 worth of fake currency on some Smurf game. All I had to do was call the credit card company. They sorted it out with Apple in no time.
post #12 of 76

this is how these parents teach their kids to 'take responsibility'? and the judge is an idiot too, for letting this proceed. what a joke.

 

post #13 of 76
This judge pretty much epitomizes why the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke.

'US justice' is fast becoming an oxymoron.
post #14 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This judge pretty much epitomizes why the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke.
'US justice' is fast becoming an oxymoron.

 

 

Spot On +++++

OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #15 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotones View Post

In all fairness, Apple is doing a horrible job of raising their children.

 

If any post needed an irony mark, THIS one does.  Epic first post.

post #16 of 76

Yup. This is obviously not the fault of the parents, who freely gave their kids young enough not to understand the balue of money their Apple ID password (which can be used to download ANYTHING off the store), it's not the fault of the developers, who decided to create a free app and entice players with in-app purchases, it's not the fault of the kids themselves, who agreed to make the purchase after a warning about the price, then entered the password- no- it's the fault of Apple... just because. 

 

Don't give your kids access to your fucking credit card account, especially when you know they're irresponsible, or don't even understand the concept of money.  It's not that damn difficult. In-app purchased ask you for a password each and every time. It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids and letting them have free reign. 

post #17 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Yup. This is obviously not the fault of the parents, who freely gave their kids young enough not to understand the balue of money their Apple ID password (which can be used to download ANYTHING off the store), it's not the fault of the developers, who decided to create a free app and entice players with in-app purchases, it's not the fault of the kids themselves, who agreed to make the purchase after a warning about the price, then entered the password- no- it's the fault of Apple... just because. 

 

Don't give your kids access to your fucking credit card account, especially when you know they're irresponsible, or don't even understand the concept of money.  It's not that damn difficult. In-app purchased ask you for a password each and every time. It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids and letting them have free reign. 

 

You running for judge in Texas?  Please allow me to donate to your campaign.  :)  And if you say this kinda stuff from the bench, sell tickets to your court room and be the first court to turn a profit.

post #18 of 76

These moronic and irresponsible parents will hopefully lose their lawsuit against Apple. Apple is not responsible for your shitty, little children. I would like to see the parents get hit with huge damages after they lose.

 

Take care of your damn kids. An iOS device is not a babysitter. A good parent will monitor what their children are up to. A shitty parent will leave their kids unsupervised, letting them run around like animals, causing havoc and chaos. 

 

I will say that I am not a fan of any of those freemium games though, and I stay away from most of them. I'd rather pay full price for a game, and not get nickled and dimed, playing one of those freemium games. I am definitely not a fan of the freemium business model, kids or no kids. 

 

edit - It's also time to erase my signature I suppose, since I see that colors are now gone. :)

post #19 of 76

avatar1.jpgApple seems to be losing a lot more often than it wins.avatar1.jpg

post #20 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

For a company with an army of lawyers, Apple seems to be losing a lot more often than it wins.

 

Apple hasn’t really lost anything here - the case hasn’t even really begun.  Having a motion denied means jack as far as the whole trial is concerned and has no bearing on the merits of the case as a whole.  As the OP points out:

 

 

 

Quote:
The denial of dismissal means that the suit can move forward, though it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will be successful in extracting damages from the iPad maker.

Motion hearings are one of those routine things that you file no matter what even if the lawyer filing them knows that they are likely to be denied.  It helps establish a defense later on.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by adamb100 View Post

avatar1.jpgApple seems to be losing a lot more often than it wins.avatar1.jpg

 

Again:  there was no “loss” since the case is ongoing and has yet to be ruled on.  In fact one of the five claims against Apple was dropped.  This doesn’t mean anything about their overall case.

 

post #21 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGLeet View Post

If the parents who are participating in this class action suit really were upset that they let their children use their phones logged into the App Store with no parental restrictions set, they would have sent an e-mail to iTunes support. And the friendly iTunes Support people would've issued them a full refund as a "one time courtesy".
Instead, these parents decided to sue.

 

Actually for all we know, they did send that email and did get that refund. And are still suing as a class action. 

 

Apple has had the restrictions from day one. Also they have never marketed this as an item that is safe to hand to your kids and stop paying attention to what they are doing. In the end that's the real rub. These parents tried to use their iPhones as a babysitter and weren't paying attention and got bit. But instead of admitting this they are trying to make Apple into the nasty folks. Rather like the parents that sue McDonald's cause their kids are obese when the real issue is the parents not saying no to their kids

 

 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #22 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

 

 

Apple hasn’t really lost anything here - the case hasn’t even really begun.  Having a motion denied means jack as far as the whole trial is concerned and has no bearing on the merits of the case as a whole.  

 

In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used  to shut down other suits. 

 

 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #23 of 76

This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward. 

post #24 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

 

In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used  to shut down other suits. 

 

 

 

That is possible, but I think it was a short term legal strategy for this case more than anything - just because the case wasn’t dismissed outright doesn’t mean that Apple still cannot bring it up later as a defense - judges allow for that all the time.  In reality, the whole thing was more Apple objecting to the complaint more than anything since it was described as bait and switch.  Apple basically tried for a quick dismissal saying “no it wasn’t and cite their agreement as a basis”.  They can just bring it up later in more detail.  The judge basically said that there is still a basis for the trial to proceed.  I doubted that a direct dismissal would happen with this - their license agreement wouldn’t be enough to argue some of the arguments anyway.  There are several arguments here remember, my guess that’s why things proceeded.  The judge didn’t think that was enough to override the claim as a whole.  I don’t see anything here  where the judge ruled that the EULA is invalid or precluded as evidence for a defense. That would have been bad...

post #25 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

If any post needed an irony mark, THIS one does.  Epic first post.

Ditto!

 

 

PS: To AI forum devs, can you please tighten up all the extra carriage returns that are now being added to all posts?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #26 of 76

Haven't ANY of you realized, Apple caters their products to main stream, stupid people, people that are afraid of technology. The $100 billion in the bank came from them, not you!  You geeks could barely muster a 10% market share and nearly drove Apple to bankruptcy!!

 

 

"..these parents have no responsibility..."

"...Yep I am have three children and they don't own phone's I want allow it...."

"...the judge is an idiot..."

"... the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke..."

"...It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids..."

"...moronic and irresponsible parents..."

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #27 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Haven't ANY of you realized, Apple caters their products to main stream, stupid people, people that are afraid of technology. The $100 billion in the bank came from them, not you!  You geeks could barely muster a 10% market share and nearly drove Apple to bankruptcy!!

 

 

"..these parents have no responsibility..."

"...Yep I am have three children and they don't own phone's I want allow it...."

"...the judge is an idiot..."

"... the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke..."

"...It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids..."

"...moronic and irresponsible parents..."


Are you really this myopic or merely another Poe?
post #28 of 76

Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.

 

'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?

post #29 of 76

i dont think so...whos winnign then nokia.

post #30 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyweston View Post

Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.

 

'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?

Indeed, "Smurfs" is a big rip-off, that should never have been allowed on the AppStore in the first place, on moral grounds, because it is specifically aimed at misleading youngsters. And there are quite a few other apps in the same league, to a lesser extent.

 

It is not because Apple has corrected the problem (satisfactorily) at some point, that a case can't be made for occurrences before that.

The fact that in-app purchases when logged-in now always require at least one more password, is a big improvement.

Of course logging out after a purchase has always been an option and trumps waiting 5 minutes before automatic logout:).

 

With respect to any "damages" that people are suing for, these should obviously be limited to the incurred in-app charges.

post #31 of 76

RE SPONS ABILTY Folks. Either you have, teach it or not. I as a parent understand that I am responsible for my children and what they do, which is why I choose to teach them right from wrong.

 

I also didn't provide my children with an iPhone / iPad or any other device that would allow them to make purchases without my consent!

 

To those folks who choose to let Apple, Nintendo, Xbox and other forms of non-life baby sit and bring up their kids, well folks, you got what you deserved!

 

Skip

post #32 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward. 

 

The judge HAS to allow it to go forward. 

Apple asked for dismissal - which is only allowed when there is no disagreement over the facts and the law is completely clear. That is, if there's ANY case at all or any real dispute after the facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a hearing. Like it or not, the US system allows plaintiffs to sue with virtually no justification at all. Only in rare cases will a suit be dismissed at this stage. The judge had no choice in the matter.


He did, however, dismiss some of the claims - so apparently there were some claims that were completely unsupportable.


This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


Are you really this myopic or merely another Poe?

 

The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.

post #34 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.

 

So not knowing much about technology somehow absolves them of any personal responsibility? 

Hold the phone, then; I now consider myself a tech idiot. Hang on, I have to go run up a bill with twenty thousand texts and five hundred in-app purchases and then get the money waived because I didn't understand what I was doing.

 

Unless you're ONLY replying to his large text out of context, in which case I sort of agree with you, but the conclusion is somewhat wrong.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #35 of 76

What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.

post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611 View Post
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.

 

What about this: the in-app purchases can't cost more than the app itself?

 

Before you say, "That doesn't work; free apps allow in-app purchases," I'll amend "or more than $25 if the app is free". That seems reasonable. Not that it's not the user's fault in the first place.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #37 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611 View Post

What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.

 

You're absolutely right. The government should control what we spend money on. No one should be allowed to sell a car for more than $100,000. And there should be a rule that wines in a restaurant shouldn't cost more than an average entree. And Disney should not be able to charge more for a family pack of tickets than for a hotel room. After all, why should anyone be responsible for how they spend their own money? 

 

/s

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotones View Post

In all fairness, Apple is doing a horrible job of raising their children.

 

 

I dunno, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping their children away from "adult content"/porn.  Too bad it's technically impossible to have parental controls that would keep items rated as "porn" away from children.

 

In other words... it seems that they argue that parental controls are a great solution, but only when it suits their pockets.

 

 

post #39 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?

 

It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.

 

I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password.  Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional.  In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.

 

 

 

post #40 of 76

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by entification View Post

 

 

It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.

 

I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password.  Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional.  In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.

 

 

 

 

If you gave the candy store permission for the child to charge things to your account, then why is it their fault when they let the child do so?

And giving the child the password to your iTunes account is the same as giving them your credit card.

What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not understand?

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › In-app purchasing suit against Apple allowed to proceed