3 ms·

> 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

by 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."

by flutas 3y ago

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."