Apple in legal trouble over free-to-play apps aimed at kids

Now this could be interesting. If Apple lose, will they make a policy against in app purchases in free to play games aimed at pre-teens?

Posted:A year ago

If Apple disabled that window of time in which you could rack up purchases without re-entering a user password, then isn't the problem already solved? I'd imagine they'd just settle this suit and everyone will move on.

Posted:A year ago

At the very least apps aimed at children should not have been eligible for in app purchases in the first place. After all what the heck is anyone doing selling a child extra content!

I would expect apple to make an example of the companies involved if only on the basis that they were targetting children with in app purchases. Something that is in no way justifiable.

Posted:A year ago

@Peter that is exactly my vewpoint, specifically targeting preteens.

Posted:A year ago

Parents let their kids get on thier parents electronics unsupervised.

These kids then proceed to download and install things, somehow they have their parents password.

They proceed to download things and start BUYING things in games.

Let's rememeber the 'unsupervised' part of this whole story.

And somehow this is Apple's fault?

Please, do people even listen to themselves anymore when they jump on a 'lets screw the corporations' lawsuit?

Posted:A year ago

All in all, I would still like to see "Free to play" where you pay to unlock certain things have their own category on all current mobile stores. Its very misleading to label them as free apps, and they also take rank slots From actual free ones. Not good for the consumers.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Robert Mac-Donald on 16th April 2012 6:29pm

Posted:A year ago

@Joshua Rose - I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with you however as always things aren't that cut and dry.

I'll use the insurance industry for example so that your knowledge of what they're doing and therefore what you can protect against is more like an average consumer.

e.g. The insurance industry has sector wide exclusions that aren't written down anywhere on their policies but if you fall foul to them will prevent any payout. Do you know what these are or even if they existed?

They will also sell a policy in a shop that they will abrieviate (and make it seem like it's the actual policy) and then send you out the real policy after the fact (sometimes weeks after) with alot more exlusions.

What relevance does this have? If a parent doesn't know these things exist then how can they know they need to supervise their kids or even if they are then that's what is happening "behind the scenes".

You can always argue that you should do your research but the law is there to protect consumers as well so in the case of Apple it would be nice to see if they are in the wrong or not.

However I agree my guess is that it won't go that far and they will probably settle.

Still could have huge implications for the rest of the industry.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by John Owens on 16th April 2012 9:40pm

Posted:A year ago

You can argue that parents can supervise kids, and then no MTs will take place, but then as very few parents would let their kids buy temporary power-ups, the app would make no money. The makers of the game are relying of a lack of understanding of supervision.
I could be wrong, maybe parents are lining up to buy kids Smurf berries, but I can't think of anyone I know who would, even those that might pay for stuff on freemium games themselves.

Posted:A year ago