Apparently, Amazon, Google, etc, have been using hi-tech decoy to rake in lots of "dirty" or unconscionable money in the last ten odd years! It's time they paid the price!
It is really odd that Apple, Amazon and I am sure eventually Google are being blamed for bad parents.
With Apple at least it was more a case of uneducated parents. They had restrictions built in with iOS from when the first iPad released. But not everyone bothered to learn all the bits about the software and missed that part. Which is why from day one they were willing to do a one time exception to the 'all sales are final' and refund purchases, with a required lesson that the parental contrails are there. If parents didn't use them no second time. Or in cases where it was obvious the kid has the password, they would only refund the first incident. Like the guys the UK who didn't pay attention to his credit card bill for six months while Junior racked up dozens of downloads in and of apps. He didn't get a refund (this was also after Apple had stepped up the info on restrictions etc )
Amazon on the other hand released a tablet that required you to be signed in at all times and had zero restrictions.
And a bigger take away is that someone is willing to slap Amazon over anything. Maybe after this, the FTC can loaned the DOJ a pair since they don't seem to have their own
If Amazon ends up paying a fine of $32.5 million that would be devastating to their profits that quarter. Maybe even that half.
The FTC required Apple to refund all purchases that fit the bill and hadn't already been refunded. So it would likely be that fine plus full refunds. So yeah it might sting a bit
Not a theory.. It's a fact. Check the link provided by Gatorguy.
Thanks for saving me the time ????
Instead of thoughtlessly ganging up, you should've actually read the legal decision.
And I quote:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Apple shall provide full refunds to Account Holders who have been billed by Apple for unauthorized In-App Charges incurred by minors as follows:
A. Apple shall provide prompt refunds to Account Holders for the full purchase price of any Eligible In-App Charge(s). For purposes of this Section II, an “Eligible In-App Charge” is an In-App Charge that the Account Holder indicates was incurred by a minor and was accidental or not authorized by the Account Holder. For purposes of this Section II.A, a “prompt” refund means a refund provided within the later of fourteen (14) days of a request for refund of an Eligible In-App Charge by the Account Holder or the completion of a fraud investigation. Apple may decline a refund request for an Eligible In-App Charge only if it has sufficient credible evidence that the refund request is fraudulent. Apple may process all refund requests through its customer service channels, which include a contact phone number and web form through which consumers may contact Apple directly.
B. Apple shall refund no less than $32,500,000.00 for Eligible In-App Charges pursuant to section II.A of this order, and such amount shall not constitute a penalty. Solely for the purposes of this section II.B of this order, Apple may approximate that 50% of all refunds provided to Account Holders for In-App Charges relate to Eligible In-App Charges.
C. Within thirty (30) days of the end of the Consumer Redress Period, Apple shall provide the Commission with records sufficient to show the refunds requested and paid to Account Holders for In-App Charges during the Consumer Redress Period, and any requests that were denied under Section II.A of this order.
D. If Apple fails to refund $32,500,000.00 pursuant to section II.B of this order, the balance of that amount shall be remitted to the Commission within forty-five (45) days of the end of the Consumer Redress Period.
E. All funds paid to the Commission pursuant to section II.D of this order may be deposited into a fund administered by the Commission or its designee to be used for equitable relief, at the Commission’s sole discretion, for informational remedies regarding In-App Charges by children or consumer redress and any attendant expenses for the administration of any redress fund. Any money not used for such purposes shall be deposited to the United States Treasury. Apple shall have no right to challenge the Commission’s choice of remedies under this Paragraph."
Me again. That's a lot of weasel wording and sufficient evidence that NOT all of the money earmarked for consumers who were negligent in handing over their bank accounts to toddlers will receive 'every penny'... and I do not hesitate to mention I don't think anyone who foolishly let this happen deserves a refund anyway.
Well no actually, it's evidence that there is a possibility that some of that money ended up at the US Treasury, not that any of it did.
There is the possibility that Apple refunded at least $32,500,000 within 45 days and provided records to the Commission as such.
There is the possibility that Apple did not refund the full amount, so gave the outstanding balance to the Commission which distributed it in further refunds.
There is the possibility that some of that money handed over was deemed unnecessary for such purposes, so was given to the Treasury.
Without further information there is no evidence that any money ended up at the Treasury, just that it is a possibility. I don't think it's particularly weaselly either, pretty straightforward.
Well no actually, it's evidence that there is a possibility that some of that money ended up at the US Treasury, not that any of it did.
There is the possibility that Apple refunded $32,500,000 within 30 days and provided records to the Commission as such.
There is the possibility that Apple did not refund the full amount, so gave the outstanding balance to the Commission which distrbuited it in further refunds.
There is the possibility that some of that money handed over was deemed unnecessary for such purposes, so was given to the Treasury.
Without further information there is no evidence that any money ended up at the Treasury, just that it is a possibility.
I'd guess that once Apple sent out the notices to app buyers that refunds would be available that a lot more than $32M was claimed by them.
The $32 millions Apple paid were refunds. It didn't go to the government. It seems Amazon don't want to refund that much money.
yeah I know that but the Fines Apple and now Amazon pays goes into the governments pockets. Remember as Apple did and Amazon is going to do they agreed to refund the consumers prior to the government getting involved so no harm was done. But the government still fines them for their activities. It like the find that Google paid for bypass the private search feature in safari. no one was harm no on lost money but the government collected a fine.
We allowed our son to use the kindle to read a book, but he then proceeded to add around $100 of comic books to it. We thought that we had set it up to block one click purchases, but you apparently had to do a lot to disable it.
I dont think that the assertion that this only happens to unaccountable parents is a fair statement.
We allowed our son to use the kindle to read a book, but he then proceeded to add around $100 of comic books to it. We thought that we had set it up to block one click purchases, but you apparently had to do a lot to disable it.
I dont think that the assertion that this only happens to unaccountable parents is a fair statement.
Caveat emptor? It's incumbent upon the parent to carefully vet the device before handing it to a small person who has no impulse control.
Instead of thoughtlessly ganging up, you should've actually read the legal decision.
And I quote:
Me again. That's a lot of weasel wording and sufficient evidence that NOT all of the money earmarked for consumers who were negligent in handing over their bank accounts to toddlers will receive 'every penny'... and I do not hesitate to mention I don't think anyone who foolishly let this happen deserves a refund anyway.
Thoughtlessly ganging up?! You asked for evidence and someone did provide you with one. That section you have posted was clear. I don't see any "weasel wording". My understanding of that text is similar to what Crowley posted.
Comments
With Apple at least it was more a case of uneducated parents. They had restrictions built in with iOS from when the first iPad released. But not everyone bothered to learn all the bits about the software and missed that part. Which is why from day one they were willing to do a one time exception to the 'all sales are final' and refund purchases, with a required lesson that the parental contrails are there. If parents didn't use them no second time. Or in cases where it was obvious the kid has the password, they would only refund the first incident. Like the guys the UK who didn't pay attention to his credit card bill for six months while Junior racked up dozens of downloads in and of apps. He didn't get a refund (this was also after Apple had stepped up the info on restrictions etc )
Amazon on the other hand released a tablet that required you to be signed in at all times and had zero restrictions.
And a bigger take away is that someone is willing to slap Amazon over anything. Maybe after this, the FTC can loaned the DOJ a pair since they don't seem to have their own
The FTC required Apple to refund all purchases that fit the bill and hadn't already been refunded. So it would likely be that fine plus full refunds. So yeah it might sting a bit
Instead of thoughtlessly ganging up, you should've actually read the legal decision.
And I quote:
Me again. That's a lot of weasel wording and sufficient evidence that NOT all of the money earmarked for consumers who were negligent in handing over their bank accounts to toddlers will receive 'every penny'... and I do not hesitate to mention I don't think anyone who foolishly let this happen deserves a refund anyway.
Well no actually, it's evidence that there is a possibility that some of that money ended up at the US Treasury, not that any of it did.
There is the possibility that Apple refunded at least $32,500,000 within 45 days and provided records to the Commission as such.
There is the possibility that Apple did not refund the full amount, so gave the outstanding balance to the Commission which distributed it in further refunds.
There is the possibility that some of that money handed over was deemed unnecessary for such purposes, so was given to the Treasury.
Without further information there is no evidence that any money ended up at the Treasury, just that it is a possibility. I don't think it's particularly weaselly either, pretty straightforward.
I'd guess that once Apple sent out the notices to app buyers that refunds would be available that a lot more than $32M was claimed by them.
I'm inclined to agree, though I have no numbers to quote.
The $32 millions Apple paid were refunds. It didn't go to the government. It seems Amazon don't want to refund that much money.
yeah I know that but the Fines Apple and now Amazon pays goes into the governments pockets. Remember as Apple did and Amazon is going to do they agreed to refund the consumers prior to the government getting involved so no harm was done. But the government still fines them for their activities. It like the find that Google paid for bypass the private search feature in safari. no one was harm no on lost money but the government collected a fine.
We allowed our son to use the kindle to read a book, but he then proceeded to add around $100 of comic books to it. We thought that we had set it up to block one click purchases, but you apparently had to do a lot to disable it.
I dont think that the assertion that this only happens to unaccountable parents is a fair statement.
We allowed our son to use the kindle to read a book, but he then proceeded to add around $100 of comic books to it. We thought that we had set it up to block one click purchases, but you apparently had to do a lot to disable it.
I dont think that the assertion that this only happens to unaccountable parents is a fair statement.
Caveat emptor? It's incumbent upon the parent to carefully vet the device before handing it to a small person who has no impulse control.
As if parenting isn't hard enough, now they have to be electronic device experts and administrators as well.
Consumer protection agencies exist because caveat emptor needn't always apply. The seller has a responsibility to provide a reasonable product.
Thoughtlessly ganging up?! You asked for evidence and someone did provide you with one. That section you have posted was clear. I don't see any "weasel wording". My understanding of that text is similar to what Crowley posted.