7 ms·

To be fair the Bank did nothing wrong. A refund means a net loss on their books, and they did not have any obligation. Marketing-wise it makes sense, but only i

To be fair the Bank did nothing wrong. A refund means a net loss on their books, and they did not have any obligation. Marketing-wise it makes sense, but only if this does not become a trend of opportunistic scammers. I really feel sorry for the mother, but ultimately is her responsability to raise her daughter. I haven’t used Roblox so maybe there is a case for going after them, but not the bank. Might as well sue the ISP that made the internet connection possible or the utility that allows charging her iPad…

flutas 3y ago
> A refund means a net loss on their books, and they did not have any obligation. What is the difference in this case between an unauthorized charge on your card? Example (here): - Mom enters CC info to allow the child to buy ONE pack. - Child then, after the fact, buys 100x packs (an unauthorized charge each time). Example 2: - Person gives a friend their CC to pay for food on DoorDash. - Person then, after the fact, continues using their CC to buy DoorDash (an unauthorized charge each time). These are both unauthorized charges, and an easy case for a chargeback. Additionally the entity out money shouldn't be the bank but Roblox, since the bank will take their money back.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  To me this falls in a grey area. Your friend in this scenario is committing fraud and/or theft. They're obviously not going to be your friend anymore, unless it was a mistake they immediately correct when notified and pay you back the money - or you forgive it. The bank can go after them and sue for the money/file charges otherwise. Can/should the bank go after your child? Or does it make more sense to say that yes, you are liable for the charges your child makes? Or do you suggest that we simply accept that kids charging money to their parent's account without permission is something society should pay for?
  - michaelt 3y ago
    When it’s Monopoly money for predatory games, and the retailer hasn’t lost anything by giving a refund? Yes.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      I am probably much more extreme than you on this issue. If I were dictator, tablets would be banned for children and in-game transactions would be illegal. (It isn't just children it takes advantage of.) But this class of problem is broader in scope - there are all kinds of services and products kids might be using their parents' cards without permission, and in a lot of cases there might be no real material loss to the company if they "eat" the refund. I think it's going to be very hard to sensibly adjudicate anything broad specifying when it's OK for the retailer just to eat the loss and when not. I don't think it's reasonable to simply declare that "your kid used your credit card without permission" is the same class of problem as "your credit card was stolen." Perhaps the best thing to do is have a mandatory refund policy on electronic products and services within say, 120 days, but this won't be very popular, and while I'd support it, opponents would likely rightly complain that a lot of consumers would abuse it.
      - flutas 3y ago
        I agree with a lot of your comment (including banning tablets/IAPs for children and the mandatory 120 day refund). I do disagree with your "this is a different situation" though. In both an entity (unknown person/child) accessed your card details, and used it for a purchase without your authorization. Theft by any other name (aka "unauthorized charges") is still theft. It's just your child doing it in this case. If, for example, you give your card to a bar and they charge your your bill, then charge someone else's bill to your card because they skipped on their bill, it's still theft even though it would be called an "unauthorized charge" in the banks eyes. Besides, a lot of this is why there's processing fees (2.9% + $0.30 for stripe for example), chargeback fees ($25 instantly if someone issues a chargeback and more if you escalate after losing once), and interest on CC products. Even if the bank can't get their money back from the company, they will likely still make more on you by giving you that refund than not.
    - 3y ago
  - flutas 3y ago
    > Or do you suggest that we simply accept that kids charging money to their parent's account without permission is something society should pay for? I fail to see how the bank taking their money back from a game, that uses virtual currency, is "society pay[ing] for [this]." Besides, this is a known issue with a known solution. Most places have a cap (or don't allow) how much anyone can go after a child's parents (typically $5k in the US) over the child's actions. Going for specific for this case. > In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable. Add in the mix that in this case the child has Autism...yeah I don't think this is the hill to die on for making parents pay for something like this.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >> In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable. But surely someone is responsible? If someone's kid goes on a joyride and crashes into your house, is nobody responsible?
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      I don't think that particular UK law applies here. Similarly, in the US, that's not how it works. You can absolutely be liable for your children's charges. In the US, it took FTC action and class-action lawsuits for deceptive billing practices to get similar charges reversed. And the only reason they won was because they were able to argue it was too easy for kids to do it without permission - it didn't hinge on them doing it without permission. https://www.cnbc.com/select/whos-responsible-for-kids-unauthorized-credit-card-charges/ https://www.cnbc.com/select/whos-responsible-for-kids-unauth... In fact, the article uses the exact same term I did: it's a "gray area", and some CC companies may not let it fly. > "However, some credit card companies define 'unauthorized charges' as charges made after your card has been lost or stolen, meaning that if your kids make purchases on your card without your knowledge, you are still liable for the charges."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
onion2k 3y ago
To be fair the Bank did nothing wrong. Having fraud detection that didn't catch a £2500 outlier without freezing the card and contacting the owner to ask if it was a legitimate purchase could be considered doing something wrong.
- jarebear6expepj 3y ago
  You are making the assumption that that would be an outlier of an expense. Perhaps the mom also spends equal if not more amounts on Roblox and those transactions are a large part of the balance sheet, and legitimate. The illegitimacy only came when the daughter did the spend. ASSumptions are fun.
  - jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
    If you read the article, it's clear the mom wasn't familiar with the game let alone spends money on it herself. She said the game looked "innocent" and "very basic."
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- ghaff 3y ago
  I mean, maybe? Fraud detection is a constant balancing of false positives and false negatives. You basically can't travel these days without multiple credit cards in case one is randomly flagged for something.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    > You basically can't travel these days without multiple credit cards in case one is randomly flagged for something. You can, you tell your bank that you're about to travel so they can relax whatever system flags it. Happened a few times that my card got locked when I went to South America, so started telling my bank before leaving and hasn't happened since.
postalrat 3y ago
They block payments to crypto and casinos. They should be blocking payments other shady organizations like Roblox.
- Sander_Marechal 3y ago
  The payment goes to Apple through teh app store, not to Roblox directly.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    Then Apple better hurry up and block Roblox before banks block all payments to Apple stores.
BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
> but ultimately is her responsability to raise her daughter The game is marketed to and hugely popular among young children. It’s possible to spend £2,500 on microtransactions. The young child in question is autistic. Your response: ‘mothers should parent their children’ I wish I could say I’m appalled by the lack of empathy, but I’m numb to it. It’s no wonder the birth rate is dropping.

flutas 3y ago

> A refund means a net loss on their books, and they did not have any obligation. What is the difference in this case between an unauthorized charge on your card? Example (here): - Mom enters CC info to allow the child to buy ONE pack. - Child then, after the fact, buys 100x packs (an unauthorized charge each time). Example 2: - Person gives a friend their CC to pay for food on DoorDash. - Person then, after the fact, continues using their CC to buy DoorDash (an unauthorized charge each time). These are both unauthorized charges, and an easy case for a chargeback. Additionally the entity out money shouldn't be the bank but Roblox, since the bank will take their money back.

Amezarak 3y ago
To me this falls in a grey area. Your friend in this scenario is committing fraud and/or theft. They're obviously not going to be your friend anymore, unless it was a mistake they immediately correct when notified and pay you back the money - or you forgive it. The bank can go after them and sue for the money/file charges otherwise. Can/should the bank go after your child? Or does it make more sense to say that yes, you are liable for the charges your child makes? Or do you suggest that we simply accept that kids charging money to their parent's account without permission is something society should pay for?
- michaelt 3y ago
  When it’s Monopoly money for predatory games, and the retailer hasn’t lost anything by giving a refund? Yes.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    I am probably much more extreme than you on this issue. If I were dictator, tablets would be banned for children and in-game transactions would be illegal. (It isn't just children it takes advantage of.) But this class of problem is broader in scope - there are all kinds of services and products kids might be using their parents' cards without permission, and in a lot of cases there might be no real material loss to the company if they "eat" the refund. I think it's going to be very hard to sensibly adjudicate anything broad specifying when it's OK for the retailer just to eat the loss and when not. I don't think it's reasonable to simply declare that "your kid used your credit card without permission" is the same class of problem as "your credit card was stolen." Perhaps the best thing to do is have a mandatory refund policy on electronic products and services within say, 120 days, but this won't be very popular, and while I'd support it, opponents would likely rightly complain that a lot of consumers would abuse it.
    - flutas 3y ago
      I agree with a lot of your comment (including banning tablets/IAPs for children and the mandatory 120 day refund). I do disagree with your "this is a different situation" though. In both an entity (unknown person/child) accessed your card details, and used it for a purchase without your authorization. Theft by any other name (aka "unauthorized charges") is still theft. It's just your child doing it in this case. If, for example, you give your card to a bar and they charge your your bill, then charge someone else's bill to your card because they skipped on their bill, it's still theft even though it would be called an "unauthorized charge" in the banks eyes. Besides, a lot of this is why there's processing fees (2.9% + $0.30 for stripe for example), chargeback fees ($25 instantly if someone issues a chargeback and more if you escalate after losing once), and interest on CC products. Even if the bank can't get their money back from the company, they will likely still make more on you by giving you that refund than not.
  - 3y ago
- flutas 3y ago
  > Or do you suggest that we simply accept that kids charging money to their parent's account without permission is something society should pay for? I fail to see how the bank taking their money back from a game, that uses virtual currency, is "society pay[ing] for [this]." Besides, this is a known issue with a known solution. Most places have a cap (or don't allow) how much anyone can go after a child's parents (typically $5k in the US) over the child's actions. Going for specific for this case. > In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable. Add in the mix that in this case the child has Autism...yeah I don't think this is the hill to die on for making parents pay for something like this.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >> In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable. But surely someone is responsible? If someone's kid goes on a joyride and crashes into your house, is nobody responsible?
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    I don't think that particular UK law applies here. Similarly, in the US, that's not how it works. You can absolutely be liable for your children's charges. In the US, it took FTC action and class-action lawsuits for deceptive billing practices to get similar charges reversed. And the only reason they won was because they were able to argue it was too easy for kids to do it without permission - it didn't hinge on them doing it without permission. https://www.cnbc.com/select/whos-responsible-for-kids-unauthorized-credit-card-charges/ https://www.cnbc.com/select/whos-responsible-for-kids-unauth... In fact, the article uses the exact same term I did: it's a "gray area", and some CC companies may not let it fly. > "However, some credit card companies define 'unauthorized charges' as charges made after your card has been lost or stolen, meaning that if your kids make purchases on your card without your knowledge, you are still liable for the charges."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

onion2k 3y ago

To be fair the Bank did nothing wrong. Having fraud detection that didn't catch a £2500 outlier without freezing the card and contacting the owner to ask if it was a legitimate purchase could be considered doing something wrong.

jarebear6expepj 3y ago
You are making the assumption that that would be an outlier of an expense. Perhaps the mom also spends equal if not more amounts on Roblox and those transactions are a large part of the balance sheet, and legitimate. The illegitimacy only came when the daughter did the spend. ASSumptions are fun.
- jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
  If you read the article, it's clear the mom wasn't familiar with the game let alone spends money on it herself. She said the game looked "innocent" and "very basic."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ghaff 3y ago
I mean, maybe? Fraud detection is a constant balancing of false positives and false negatives. You basically can't travel these days without multiple credit cards in case one is randomly flagged for something.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > You basically can't travel these days without multiple credit cards in case one is randomly flagged for something. You can, you tell your bank that you're about to travel so they can relax whatever system flags it. Happened a few times that my card got locked when I went to South America, so started telling my bank before leaving and hasn't happened since.

postalrat 3y ago

They block payments to crypto and casinos. They should be blocking payments other shady organizations like Roblox.

Sander_Marechal 3y ago
The payment goes to Apple through teh app store, not to Roblox directly.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Then Apple better hurry up and block Roblox before banks block all payments to Apple stores.

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago

> but ultimately is her responsability to raise her daughter The game is marketed to and hugely popular among young children. It’s possible to spend £2,500 on microtransactions. The young child in question is autistic. Your response: ‘mothers should parent their children’ I wish I could say I’m appalled by the lack of empathy, but I’m numb to it. It’s no wonder the birth rate is dropping.