In-app purchasing suit against Apple allowed to proceed

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


    After the evidence is given and the testimony is heard, a regular judgement is rendered.


     


    A dismissal can happen at various times.  Before the trial, or after the plaintiff closes its case are two possibiilities.


     


    Summary judgement  is not given during a trial.  It  is given  before the trial begins.



     


    Which happens to be exactly what this case was about. The judge ordered dismissal of some complaints and allowed the others to proceed.


     


    It's interesting that you're flip flopping all over the place - while accusing others of not understanding the law.



     


    Whether or not that's what happened in this case, I was responding to the prior point, which you snipped out.


     


    "My understanding is that a summary judgement happens during a trial after evidence is presented and testimony is given." 


     


    I was saying that summary judgement does not happen after the trial is held. I gae some related info as well.


     


     


     


     


     


    Show me where I am "flip flopping all over the place".  Or stop saying shit like that.


     

  • Reply 62 of 78
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    <div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>dolphin0611</strong> <a href="/t/149471/in-app-purchasing-suit-against-apple-allowed-to-proceed/40#post_2099177"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> And parents can't watch their children playing with their iPad or iPhone all the time, right?</div></div><p>  </p><p> Doesn't absolve them of responsibility. You don't give the child the device without teaching them how to use it and how to be responsible with it.</p>

    Parents should take responsibility; however, it gets more complex when devices don't work as one might expect. These parents are saying they throught it was safe to hand the device to their child to play. They didn't expect a window of time where their child could make purchases without a password.
  • Reply 63 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

    Parents should take responsibility; however, it gets more complex when devices don't work as one might expect. These parents are saying they throught it was safe to hand the device to their child to play. They didn't expect a window of time where their child could make purchases without a password.


     


    But that has been taken care of and anyone involved already reimbursed if they desired. It's no questions asked, generally. You just tell Apple that's what happened and they'd reimburse you. Since there's no window any longer, it's knowingly being done. It's not negligence on the part of Apple.

  • Reply 64 of 78
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lotones View Post


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



     


    In all fairness, most "freemium" games are basically a scam.  These games like the Smurfs etc. were deliberately set up to fool people (i.e. kids), into spending a lot of money in the game without knowing it.  They were purposely designed to rip people off.  


     


    Apple does all that horrible morality based censorship, but they can't remove an obvious scam from the app store?  They remove apps that unintentionally offend, but then they leave in stuff that intentionally deceives the users?  How does that make any sense?


     


    Sure, the parents *should* have been smarter, and *techincally* yes, it's ultimately their responsibility to check these things, but there is such a thing in law as an "attractive nuisance."  They could possibly win the case on those grounds.  


     


    Apple should have had every expectation that kids were going to be ripped off by theses games but they did nothing to stop it until after the complaints were rampant.  Also, the fact that they removed some of them and stopped the practice kind of indicates guilt.    

  • Reply 65 of 78
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


     


    In all fairness, most "freemium" games are basically a scam.  These games like the Smurfs etc. were deliberately set up to fool people (i.e. kids), into spending a lot of money in the game without knowing it.  They were purposely designed to rip people off.  



     


    I think that's a little harsh. Some freemium games (Dragonvale, TapZoo, and Zombie Farm come to mind) are readily playable and enjoyable without spending money. There are some things you can't do in some of the games (for example, some of the animals in TapZoo require cash), but there's still plenty you can do without spending money.

    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 66 of 78
    russellrussell Posts: 296member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Craigluc View Post


    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.



     


     


     


    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.


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


     


    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


     


     



     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    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



     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


     


    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?



     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


     


    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?



     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


        Quote:


        Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

        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.

  • Reply 67 of 78
    bryandbryand Posts: 78member
    Its so typical for people with children to expect everyone else to take responsibility for them and pay for their mistakes. I don't let my dog run loose and then try to blame a driver for hitting him with a car. I keep him indoors or leashed while outside. If you have children, they're your responsibility. Don't expect everyone else to watch them for you. It's bad enough that you're picking my pocket for all the tax breaks and free eduction your kids get.
    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 68 of 78
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post long winded stuff


     


    So if I give my car keys to my kids and tell them to go for a drive, it's the car makers fault for not providing a large warning that I shouldn't do this?


     


    I see.


     


    When will the judiciary catch up with the way they want to shape society.


     


    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it comes to criminal law.


     


    Not only is ignorance an excuse when it comes to civil law, it's rewarded.

  • Reply 69 of 78


    As in any article or news item regarding parents, the childless think everything is so easy and simple and if parents were responsible, then this would not be a problem. I fell victim to this recently, and although Apple refunded the money immediately after I complained, I agree with the earlier poster who suggested that apps for children be required to always request a password for purchases.


     


    My daughter was playing a Princess dress up game and saw an ad for Princess Pet Salon. I downloaded the free app and gave the iPhone back to her. In the Princess Pet Salon game, there is fake money that you earn for working on pets. The kids clicked on an icon that required you to have more rainbows than they had. The app asked if they would like to buy rainbows. The kids assumed this was with the fake money and bought some. Now, my ten year old did this a second time and got suspicious. They made their purchases within fifteen minutes of my download and each other, so it did not require the password again. 


     


    They told me. I told Apple. The money was refunded. Nonetheless, the rainbows cost over $100 per purchase and the use of fake money in the app makes it very likely that young children will not understand. Finally, I never gave my password to my child like the parent haters suggest in these forums.This type of app is evil and should be banned. I doubt anyone wants there kid spending that type of cash on a kids app. Apple should begin to screen for this setup.

    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 70 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

    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.




    On an Apple website? STOP THE FRIGGING PRESSES. We don't use that term here.


     




    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.



     


    Said purchases were not required to use the app. There is no false advertising, no misleading, and since the update that killed the 15 minute window (and since Apple would give refunds if directly asked), no case.

  • Reply 71 of 78
    russellrussell Posts: 296member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rickmcd View Post


    ...The money was refunded. Nonetheless, the rainbows cost over $100 per purchase and the use of fake money in the app makes it very likely that young children will not understand.



     


     


    That is shitty of apple to allow an app like that, $99.99 for 2200 rainbows. Even a full fledge Playstation, Xbox or PC game doesn't cost that much. It's obvious app publishers are hoping you won't check your credit card statement.


     


    Apple may boast their products protect you from porn, but they don't protect you from crooks. And apple gets a 30% cut!


     


    Let's see if the next lawsuit will be directed at the publishers.

  • Reply 72 of 78
    russellrussell Posts: 296member


     


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     


     


    Said purchases were not required to use the app. There is no false advertising, no misleading, and since the update that killed the 15 minute window (and since Apple would give refunds if directly asked), no case.



     


     


    Do you really think people should listen to you?  Do you really think if a company, or anybody for that matter, breaks the law and then stops, they are absolved from their previous offense?


    It's obvious Apple was shown the error of their ways because they removed the 15 minute window.


     


    After more and more people check their statements and see the outrageous dollar amounts for children's in app purchases, I would not be surprised if more lawsuits are filed and it turns into a class action lawsuit.


     


    iPhone 4 Settlement  https://www.iphone4settlement.com/


    MagSafe Power Adapter Settlement  https://www.adaptersettlement.com/


    Ipod Settlement  http://www.appleipodsettlement.com


    Apple Inc. Securities Settlement  https://www.applesecuritiessettlement.com


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Quote:


        Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

        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.



     


     


    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...


     


     


     

  • Reply 73 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Russell View Post

    Do you really think people should listen to you?



     


    Yep.


     



    Do you really think if a company, or anybody for that matter, breaks the law and then stops, they are absolved from their previous offense?



     


    Nope. Which is why I didn't say that. If the case is entirely about that timeframe, then Apple needs to just pay back those purchases, just like they would DURING that time. If it's about purchases since then, it's hardly Apple's fault.


     



    I would not be surprised if more lawsuits are filed and it turns into a class action lawsuit.



     


    Against whom? Apple? Apple doesn't set the prices in those games. That's like suing the grocery store because milk costs too much.

  • Reply 74 of 78
    russellrussell Posts: 296member


    What apple is allowing with in app purchases is similar to credit card cramming.


     


     


    Credit card cramming is a practice of initiating charges to a credit card without the expressed permission of the credit card holder. In some instances, the holder of the credit card may have some past connection with the entity that initiates the charge, but did not authorize the specific transaction. In other instances, the credit card crammers initiate small unauthorized purchases after illegally obtaining the card information, hoping that holders of the credit cards that are scammed will not notice until it is too late.


     


    While credit card cramming does not necessarily involve credit card fraud in all instances, the practice is generally considered to be unprofessional.


    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-credit-card-cramming.htm


     


    Credit card cramming tactics revealed in FTC investigation


    Written by Joe Taylor Jr. 

    Posted On: February 14, 2011




    How much does it really cost to fight a fraudulent charge on your credit card bill? Some companies count on you thinking that getting a wrong charge removed will take so much time and hassle that you might consider just letting it slide. Other companies think you won't even notice their transaction on your account, especially if you use a corporate credit card.


     





    Credit card chargebacks

    Legitimate merchants hate chargebacks. For small-business owners, fighting a chargeback can cost as much as $35 per disputed charge. Some credit card processors will kick merchants off their networks for as few as three unsuccessfully disputed transactions in a month. Crammers and scammers use multiple credit card processors to minimize their risk of getting caught.




    That's where Operation Short Change comes in. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission launched an all-out assault on scammers, shady operators and misguided merchants.


    http://www.cardratings.com/creditcardblog/category/credit-card-fraud/credit-card-cramming-tactics-revealed-in-ftc-investigation.html


     


     



     

  • Reply 75 of 78


    [My kid racked up a $400 bill playing bug village on my droid. They would not refund my money. I



    searched the market and found WalletGuard and now I can let my kid use my phone to play games



    without worrying about being ripped off!]



    You can download it by clicking below Link

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gray.walletguard.topactivity

  • Reply 76 of 78


    [My kid racked up a $400 bill playing bug village on my droid. They would not refund my money. I



    searched the market and found WalletGuard and now I can let my kid use my phone to play games



    without worrying about being ripped off!]



    You can download it by clicking below Link

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gray.walletguard.topactivity

     

  • Reply 77 of 78


    [My kid racked up a $400 bill playing bug village on my droid. They would not refund my money. I



    searched the market and found WalletGuard and now I can let my kid use my phone to play games



    without worrying about being ripped off!]



    You can download it by clicking below Link

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gray.walletguard.topactivity

     

  • Reply 78 of 78


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


     


     


    You mean with "an" unforgiving attitude.   And "their", not "there".  

Sign In or Register to comment.