3 ms·

1. Company is on the record as being aware of unauthorized use of parents' credit cards. 1a. Company is aware of channels particularly prone to unauthorized us

1. Company is on the record as being aware of unauthorized use of parents' credit cards. 1a. Company is aware of channels particularly prone to unauthorized use of credit cards (with Ninja games being presented as the archetype). 2. Company creates a method for verifying the authority of purchase (and confirms that it works) 3. Company intentionally does not implement verification method, thus explicitly profiting from known fraud. Now, I'm very much not a lawyer, but this strikes me as the sort of behavior we would seek criminal penalties for. Has there been any indication that this has been forwarded to the relevant parties for investigation / prosecution?

billfruit 8y ago
The catch is FB requires that users be 13+, and someone younger than that using FB is a violation of their terms. Some if not most of these kids may be younger than that.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  It seems reminiscent of marketing tobacco/nicotine to minors. It's easy to say "well, it's not our fault people are breaking the law/contract" up until it comes out that internal documents show the company was targeting such people. I don't completely understand why people maintain that something could be innocent while ignoring the evidence that it wasn't.
mirimir 8y ago
Well, in TFA: > The records are part of a class-action lawsuit focused on how Facebook targeted children in an effort to expand revenue for online games, such as Angry Birds, PetVille and Ninja Saga. They have a strong case, I think. Indeed, the facts are so egregious that punitive (treble) damages are possible. So even if class counsel take ~30%, the class could get ~100% recovery. How much? Well, basically it'd be [number of children]*[amount charged per child]. Maybe a few $billion?
TylerE 8y ago
Maybe parents should have a separate login for their kids that doesn't have the CC info saved? Leaving that saved in the browser is awful close to authorization since there are reasonable, low-effort steps that could be followed by a non-technical user to prevent it from happening. It's like leaving your card on the kitchen counter and being upset when they order pizza.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Maybe parents should have a separate login for their kids that doesn't have the CC info saved? In at least one case in the article (the 12-year old in Phoenix), the kid apparently did have a separate account; but he asked his mom to let him use her card for what he thought was a one-time purchase, but Facebook stored the card info and behaved like recurring payments had been authorized. (Also the game appears to have been highly non-transparent about when such charges were being incurred.) So while I agree that the mom would have been well advised not to let the kid use the card for even that one-time purchase, I think that pales in comparison to Facebook's conduct.

billfruit 8y ago

The catch is FB requires that users be 13+, and someone younger than that using FB is a violation of their terms. Some if not most of these kids may be younger than that.

perl4ever 8y ago
It seems reminiscent of marketing tobacco/nicotine to minors. It's easy to say "well, it's not our fault people are breaking the law/contract" up until it comes out that internal documents show the company was targeting such people. I don't completely understand why people maintain that something could be innocent while ignoring the evidence that it wasn't.

mirimir 8y ago

Well, in TFA: > The records are part of a class-action lawsuit focused on how Facebook targeted children in an effort to expand revenue for online games, such as Angry Birds, PetVille and Ninja Saga. They have a strong case, I think. Indeed, the facts are so egregious that punitive (treble) damages are possible. So even if class counsel take ~30%, the class could get ~100% recovery. How much? Well, basically it'd be [number of children]*[amount charged per child]. Maybe a few $billion?

TylerE 8y ago

Maybe parents should have a separate login for their kids that doesn't have the CC info saved? Leaving that saved in the browser is awful close to authorization since there are reasonable, low-effort steps that could be followed by a non-technical user to prevent it from happening. It's like leaving your card on the kitchen counter and being upset when they order pizza.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 8y ago
> Maybe parents should have a separate login for their kids that doesn't have the CC info saved? In at least one case in the article (the 12-year old in Phoenix), the kid apparently did have a separate account; but he asked his mom to let him use her card for what he thought was a one-time purchase, but Facebook stored the card info and behaved like recurring payments had been authorized. (Also the game appears to have been highly non-transparent about when such charges were being incurred.) So while I agree that the mom would have been well advised not to let the kid use the card for even that one-time purchase, I think that pales in comparison to Facebook's conduct.