or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government - Page 2

post #41 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Is your son racking up $6,000 bills for in-app purchases?

Hell no. He hasn't made any in-app purchases whatsoever.

 

I was talking more to the point of having a different, limited login setup for him where he wouldn't even have the opportunity to buy anything. PERIOD. And he'd be able to leave my crap alone as well in his own walled off iOS login environment on my iPad.

 

Me: Email, Work Apps, Safari... pretty much full access.

Son: Access to his educational apps and games. That's it. Nothing else.

post #42 of 101
I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.

Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
post #43 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.

Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.

I still don't know why it takes Apple a minimum of 24 hours and sometimes days to send emails of purchases. My son buys downloads from Google, Microsoft, Sony (PS3, PSVita), and Apple. I get almost instantaneous emails from the others but not from Apple. How many more IAPs occurred because the parents didn’t get the email until the next day?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.

Unless it's been changed (again) the developer contract stipulates that in the event Apple refunds a customer for app purchses within 90 days of the original transaction they have the right to withhold enough commissions due to that developer to reimburse Apple. This is/was the applicable contract sub-section found under "Responsibility, Liability and Indemnity

"6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end-user."

But seeing as many of the refunds now will be outside that 90 day window Apple may not have recourse under the contract to hold the developer ultimately responsible. Dunno. In addition any monies not refunded to App Store customers from the $32.5M settlement will be "contributed" to the FTC. 1hmm.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/15/14 at 4:35pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In addition any monies not refunded to App Store customers from the $32.5M settlement will be "contributed" to the FTC. 1hmm.gif

How convenient.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I remember a story about the FTC investiging potential privacy issues in apps targeting children, and yes that included Google Play.

In many countries (and especially so on certain days, such as Christmas, birthdays, etc...) giving a child an Android device is classified as child abuse.
post #47 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

So when does Google have to pay up for the same thing in the Google app store?

 

Whenever the Google App Store actually makes $32.5 million.

post #48 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Unless there's something that Apple isn't revealing, I don't understand why the FTC got involved.   Seems to me that Apple was already doing the right thing and the court agreed.   

I'm not an Apple fanboy and I criticize Apple when I believe they're in the wrong, but how many other companies would have contacted everyone by email (instead of waiting for customer service complaints) who had made a purchase and then, when emails bounced back, notified people with postcards?

Something "stinks" about the kid who ordered $thousands of dollars of in-app purchases.    The kid would of had to of made those purchases within 15 minutes AND with a password.   Hell...the app store makes you enter a password even for free applications (which drives me nuts).     So how did the kid make all those purchases without the parent knowing (and obviously without the parent properly setting up the device).      

Fortune explained why the FTC got involved AFTER Apple had already begun the reimbursements. Get this... Any of the $32.5 million NOT paid out MUST go to the FTC!

The US government is going to get its slimy, thieving paws on Apple's cash horde no matter what!

Here is the Fortune link...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/15/apple-ftc-kid-apps/?source=yahoo_quote

Just in case the article gets mysteriously updated...

post #49 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Fortune explained why the FTC got involved AFTER Apple had already begun the reimbursements. Get this... Any of the $32.5 million NOT paid out MUST go to the FTC!

The US government is going to get its slimy, thieving paws on Apple's cash horde no matter what!

Here is the Fortune link...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/15/apple-ftc-kid-apps/?source=yahoo_quote

Just in case the article gets mysteriously updated...


Excellent (and most interesting) article.
post #50 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Excellent (and most interesting) article.

The related story there has some very interesting claims too. Over 75% of total App Store revenue coming from. . . wait for it... in-app purchases?? That's incredible.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/29/apple-in-app-purchase/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Excellent (and most interesting) article.

I agree. Also some good commenting over there
post #52 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The related story there has some very interesting claims too. Over 75% of total App Store revenue coming from. . . wait for it... in-app purchases?? That's incredible.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/29/apple-in-app-purchase/

Which is the reason why I took the iPod Touch away from my son and got him a PS Vita instead. The IAPs for these 'cheap' games were costing me a small fortune. I'd rather pay $15-20 one time for a full game than $. 99 for a crippled game that requires one to spend more money in order to play it fully.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #53 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazerCT View Post

it seems that parents these days have been released of all responsibility for supervising their kids
.and on top it, they get paid for being ignorant.

So, will those that get reimbursed for unauthorized app purchases delete those apps they didn't give their kids permission to buy? I highly doubt it.

A​s a result, Apple will probably
 require us to sign-in with every single app purchase in the future so as to avoid the litigious behavior
 of those that find it easier to sue than to set and enforce ground rules with their children. Guaranteed, those same parents will be the first ones to complain that they have to input their password with every purchase made.

There's something we're not considering. There are games like Angry Birds that initially did not have IAPs, but then included it in a update, so if a game is set to auto-update then a parent might be unaware that a game they thought had no IAPs now all of a sudden does.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #54 of 101
Apple in turn should place a law suit on all the stupid irresponsible parents who do a crappy job with "basic parenting" - dumb dumb parents (or are they truly a "parent"). Hysterical how dumb people are...
post #55 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.

Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.

Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #56 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone.

That would not be in Apple's interest. It's important for those young users to be committed to Apple's ecosystem and become Apple consumers when they reach adulthood.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 101
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
That is the exact problem, the FTC has forced Apple's hand (wonder what is real back story) they have now reinforce the idea that people do not need to be responsible for their actions.

 

But this was before Apple absolved themselves thereof. They have a toggle switch now to turn off in-app purchases entirely.

 

They cannot be sued over this ever again, not only because they already have been, but because they have everything in place available to the user that is required to prevent it from happening.

 

Originally Posted by maccherry View Post
The app maker make a watered down product and then ask you to add on to it, at a price, to make it the way it should have been at time of download.

 

This is legal and allowed by Apple. Get over it and just buy the full version.

 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
That would not be in Apple's interest. It's important for those young users to be committed to Apple's ecosystem and become Apple consumers when they reach adulthood.

 

Is Apple a parent? Then why would you say this?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #58 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.

It doesn't have to be a iPhone, it could be a iPod Touch. How many here laud it for being a much better choice than a Nintendo DS or PS Vita? No parent is going to stand over a child and watch him/her play. A game like Angry Birds didn't originally have IAPs but included them in a update, previous updates just included more levels so someone could very easily had missed that a certain update now included IAPs. I know I'm repeating myself but nobody is considering that point.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Is Apple a parent? Then why would you say this?

Because the poster said "don't give the kids the iPhone". Seems pretty clear why Apple would prefer parents not resort to that.
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/16/14 at 8:51am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.

It's not just a protection for kids:

http://gizmodo.com/holy-shit-i-just-spent-236-on-candy-crush-help-1032185653

It would help stop IAPs that are selected by accident and help buyers be more responsible with overpriced or highly addictive games. Gambling companies have measures and warnings to help people gamble responsibly. Some IAPs are much more expensive than the app and should be guarded against:

http://www.t3.com/features/in-app-purchases-most-expensive-ever

Stopping kids getting devices is fine in an ideal world but you can't keep them under control 24/7. The devices aren't always expensive. An iPod Touch is just $230 and could be used to buy music and the stored credentials then used to buy games.

It does help that kids get these devices too so they stay in the Apple eco-system. Imagine what the future would be like with an entire generation raised on Android. A dystopia filled with hate, jealousy, theft and lies.
post #61 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

^ post

Isn't that was it meant by 'parenting': be a good parent and set the restrictions to desired level. I wouldn't want some kid to have access to my mail. Not that they may not read it, just don't want anything deleted.
post #62 of 101
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Because the poster said "don't give the kids the iPhone". Seems pretty clear why Apple would prefer parents not resort to that.

 

I suppose they’d prefer endless lawsuits born of stupidity, huh.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #63 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I suppose they’d prefer endless lawsuits born of stupidity, huh.

You normally think a bit bigger than that.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 101
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
You normally think a bit bigger than that.

 

I just prefer the concept of parents parenting. That appeals to me in the same way that responsibility for one’s actions does.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #65 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I just prefer the concept of parents parenting. That appeals to me in the same way that responsibility for one’s actions does.

Did ever make a accidental long distance call as a kid? I remember one time my brother called a guy in Wales.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 101
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Did ever make a accidental long distance call as a kid?

 

I don’t recall these kids accidentally buying things. Accidents and purposeful action are handled differently.

 
I remember one time my brother called a guy in Wales. 

 

That’s punishment in and of itself. HI-YO!

Sorry, Wales.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don’t recall ...

Not my native language, but isn't it 'redial'? Sorry, stupid mood ATM
post #68 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

So when does Google have to pay up for the same thing in the Google app store? Or, like the Chinese labor flaps, only Apple does this and gets sued?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/google-play-store-lets-your-kid-spend-like-a-drunken-sailor/index.htm
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #69 of 101
Maybe parents should learn how to use the setting that are already on the phone before handing over their devices to their 3 year olds.
post #70 of 101
The problem is the DEFAULT setting! There should be a prompt when setting this phone up that asks if minors will have access to the phone. If answered yes, default the settings to In-App = Off and Password = Immediately. Or at least ask these two questions and explain them.

Let the parent research online how to "fix" the issue if the new default values are bothering them and be well aware of the change they are making.

Apple is refusing to do this as it obviously would destroy the entire free-to-play market that they profit on today.
post #71 of 101
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post
The problem is the DEFAULT setting!

 

No, it isn’t.

 
There should be a prompt when setting this phone up that asks if minors will have access to the phone.

 

No, there shouldn’t. That’s the absolute wrong thing to do.

 
Or at least ask these two questions and explain them.

 

It’s not Apple’s responsibility to educate idiots. There is no reason for them to hold people’s hands.

 
Apple is refusing to do this as it obviously would destroy the entire free-to-play market that they profit on today. 

 

Right, wrong.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #72 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

The problem is the DEFAULT setting! There should be a prompt when setting this phone up that asks if minors will have access to the phone. If answered yes, default the settings to In-App = Off and Password = Immediately. Or at least ask these two questions and explain them.

Let the parent research online how to "fix" the issue if the new default values are bothering them and be well aware of the change they are making.

Apple is refusing to do this as it obviously would destroy the entire free-to-play market that they profit on today.

Just like child safety locks should be enable by default on vehicles, right? And TV controls on by default, right?

If you are too lazy to thumb through the settings on a new device, God help your child.
post #73 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

It’s not Apple’s responsibility to educate idiots. There is no reason for them to hold people’s hands.

You morons are looking at this from the wrong point of view.  Its not "idiot" parents, but "uneducated" parents.  These parents had no idea that these games even had these capabilities.  Apple made no effort to make them aware of this during the original sales transaction.  A little blame can be put on the lazy parents for not being more involved and testing the games before handing them to their children.  That said, the concept as a whole was completely foreign to them.

 

Furthermore, Apple does not advertise the "15 minute" rule.  If a parent was only purchasing a handful of games or apps, they might have been prompted every time they entered a password.  Why would it be wrong for this parent to also assume they would be prompted every time they made a purchase going forward?

 

My argument is these issues could be avoided if they would go with an "opt-in" instead of "opt-out" approach.

post #74 of 101
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post
Its not "idiot" parents, but "uneducated" parents.

 

Then they can educate themselves. All the information they need is right there on the device.

 
These parents had no idea that these games even had these capabilities.

 

Then. they. can. educate. themselves.

 

It’s not Steven Spielberg’s fault when parents let their five year old watch Jurassic Park without having seen it themselves.

 
Apple made no effort to make them aware of this during the original sales transaction.

 

Nor do they have to. Nor should they.

 

My argument is these issues could be avoided if they would go with an "opt-in" instead of "opt-out" approach. 

 

And that will never happen.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Just like child safety locks should be enable by default on vehicles, right? And TV controls on by default, right?

If you are too lazy to thumb through the settings on a new device, God help your child.

 

Knowing about "Child safety locks" is a reasonable expectation.  Realizing that free games can charge real money, and furthermore without a password within 15 minutes is far from the gray area.

 

An iPhone is not marketed to just tech nerds, its market towards everyday parents.  If this was some Linux based nerd gadget I would agree here, but this is a phone aimed at the common person.  You have to be more reasonable in your expectations if you don't intend to educate them.

post #76 of 101
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

Knowing about Child safety locks" is a reasonable expectation.

 

Inherently knowing how to operate them, however, is not. They’re not the same across vehicles.

 

So you consult the manual. Piece of cake.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #77 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

It’s not Steven Spielberg’s fault when parents let their five year old watch Jurassic Park without having seen it themselves.

In every trailer I have ever seen for Jurassic Park it makes it clear with the MPAA rating at the beginning that the movie is not intended for children.  I don't recall that same rating being attached to "Smurfs Village"?

post #78 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Inherently knowing how to operate them, however, is not. They’re not the same across vehicles.

 

So you consult the manual. Piece of cake.

Your missing the point.  I am not saying they shouldn't understand how to consult a manual.  I am saying they had no reasonable expectation that such a feature existed in the first place.  If they never made an in app purchase themselves, its fair to assume they weren't aware of the feature.

 

The owner / parent has open doors in a car before, they can assume the child will do the same and should look into preventing it.

post #79 of 101
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post
I don't recall that same rating being attached to "Smurfs Village"?

 

Because that would be a lie.

 

Originally Posted by BrettF View Post
Your missing the point.  I am not saying they shouldn't understand how to consult a manual.  I am saying they had no reasonable expectation that such a feature existed in the first place.  If they never made an in app purchase themselves, its fair to assume they weren't aware of the feature.

 

So they teach themselves about the product before giving it to their child.

 

With restrictions off, the child can view any pornography that doesn’t require Flash. I don’t see a lawsuit against Apple about that.

 

Because there IS a reasonable expectation that restrictions exist. Therefore it is the parents’ responsibility to FIND said restrictions, ENABLE them, and learn about what they entail.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #80 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Because that would be a lie.

 

 

So they teach themselves about the product before giving it to their child.

 

With restrictions off, the child can view any pornography that doesn’t require Flash. I don’t see a lawsuit against Apple about that.

 

Because there IS a reasonable expectation that restrictions exist. Therefore it is the parents’ responsibility to FIND said restrictions, ENABLE them, and learn about what they entail.

 

I am done with this conversation.  For whatever reason you seem obsessed with defending Apple, when you clearly have no concept of seeing the realty of the situation.

 

If the parents don't know the feature exist, how can you expect them to research and teach themselves?!?  Why on earth you are assuming the common Joe would even think of such a concept "in app purchases" exist is beyond me.

 

There is no lawsuit about porn, because any reasonable adult knows the possibility exist.  If it bothers them they can reasonable investigate and research how to prevent it.  You can't make the same assumption about in app purchases.  At the time the concept was entirely new.

 

To clarify I am not arguing that the parents didn't reasonable know "restrictions" could be enabled, but rather that the feature of making purchases with real money within a free children's game existed.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government