Originally Posted by Craigluc
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.
Originally Posted by MGLeet
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.
Originally Posted by charlituna
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
Originally Posted by ncee
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!
Originally Posted by jragosta
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?
Originally Posted by jragosta
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?
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Orlando
Parents are NOT giving their child the password to their iTunes account.
I'm sure that you know that for certain, but I'm here to tell you you're completely wrong about that. They absolutely are.
And your claim is that in every single possible instance in which a child could have purchased something without the parent's consent, the device was running a version of iOS prior to iOS 4.3 AND the password had been entered less than 15 minutes prior.
This claim is nonsense.
It's obvious many of you only read the title, and maybe, the first post of this thread, which was written by a biased apple fanboi. Influenced by that bias, many of you came up with hypothetical situations why the lawsuit was created and using those same situations why the lawsuit has no merit.
If any of you spent some time reading the actual court docket, you will see the FACTUAL BACKGROUND for the lawsuit and the five claims (one of which Apple was successful in having dismissed). The docket even gave the reasons why the court decided the way they did.
The docket is a bit convulated, but the heart of the lawsuit is Apple markets and puts emphasis on the apps being free (costs no money to play), but puts very little emphasis on their ability to spend money internally. Coupled with the fact that a password is not required for 15 minutes, the plaintiffs felt Apple was being deceptive.
Page 1, line 20: Plaintiffs bring the instant class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated parents or guardians who (a) downloaded or permitted their minor children to download a supposedly free app from Apple and (b) then incurred charges for game-related purchases made by their minor children without the parents’ and guardians’ knowledge or permission.
Page 9, line 10: Plaintiffs contend that Apple breached its duty to disclose material facts about the game currency embedded in these gaming apps and the ability to purchase such game currency for a fifteen-minute period without re-entering a password.
Page 9, line 15: The CLRA proscribes “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 2009 WL 3740648, at*16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009). Conduct that is “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer” violates the CLRA. Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2012 WL 75443, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6,2012) (quoting Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663, 680 (2006)).CLRA claims sounding in fraud must establish reliance and causation. Buckland v. Threshold Enters., Ltd., 155 Cal. App. 4th 798, 809 (2007), overruled on other grounds by Kwikset Corp v.Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011).Omissions are actionable under the CLRA only when the omission is contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant or where a duty to disclose exists. Keegan, 2012WL 75443, at *6. Under California law, a duty to disclose arises in four circumstances: “(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from plaintiff; or (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also supresses some material facts.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 980, 987(N.D. Cal. 2010)). In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that Apple had a duty to disclose because it concealed and/or omitted facts in the advertising, marketing, and promotion of its apps. For a non-disclosed fact to be material, a plaintiff must show that if the omitted information had been available, the plaintiff would have been aware of it and behaved differently.
Page 10, line 13: The Complaint explicitly states that at least one Plaintiff downloaded a game app and gave it to her son“[b]ecause it said it was ‘free’” and another Plaintiff gave her iPhone to her daughter so that she could “play the ‘free’ game.” Id., at ¶¶ 9, 12. Plaintiffs further assert that they were not informed by Apple that once an iTunes account holder entered a password, he or she could make purchases for up to fifteen minutes without re-entering the password. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiffs contend that,“[h]ad any Plaintiff or other member of the Class known what their children were purchasing and for how much, they would not have permitted the sales transaction from being consummated.” Id.at ¶ 86. Finally, the Complaint alleges that as a result of the fraud, Plaintiffs were charged large sums of money after game currency was purchased without their knowledge.
Drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the court denies Apple’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action.