Google Adsense/Admob blocks you for life if you use it before you're 18
support.google.com
support.google.com
I really really wish the internet was more supportive of "early hackers" who want to experiment. I get that there are tons of implications around contract law and child labor here, but there really needs to be an escape hatch if a parent agrees to whatever activity is being done. Ostensibly, this is a young creator getting discouraged from their hobby, even though they've shown that they're good enough at it to deserve some form of compensation. This'll leave a bad taste in the kid's mouth for a long time.
My mom definitely wouldn’t be able to provide informed consent to half the stuff I was doing on the internet in high school and middle school even if I told her about it.
She worried, I’m sure, but between speaking next to zero english and the novelty of www in the early 00’s, best she could do was threaten to take the computer if things got too weird.
It feel like nowadays, it'd have resulted in a lawsuit, but at least threatening lawyer letters.
edit: Archive.org link to the site. With a visitor counter and cringy teeny-sounding English ;) https://web.archive.org/web/20020522193227/http://home.foni....
For anyone interested, this was strictly beta, by a group of crackers who said they’d stop releasing anything as soon as the game was done. I was one of 4 or 5 people who’d get advanced notification in IRC to upload the newest patches etc. so there’d be multiple mirrors available for the announcement.
On that note, my sister can't wrap her head around the fact that people can have multiple bank accounts and many of them are completely free.
She looks at my collection of cards and says "omg the Finanzamt will get you!".
Just wait until they get you for making money off TikTok videos lol
Companies don't have a choice here: Someone under 18 can not enter into a contract, there's nothing really they can do.
Not sure if you can do that after you turn 18 though.
So, you could theoretically rent servers and buy ad space on Adsense as long your pocket money covers it. On the other hand: this is a liability for Google and $provider -- as most of them are post-pay. If a teen ever decides to spawn an A1000 instance with 36 cores and cannot pay, the contract is void and Google has no entitlement for compensation.
Pre-paid stuff like a small instance on vultr.com should work fine, though.
I couldn't believe you can rent 12 core servers for 3 months and not pay for it!
Yes, I know it was illegal lol
Of course what is typical for a certain age might end up for interpretation by the courts in the worst case (and occasionally it does).
Is pocket money universal? I thought it was somewhat outdated as a concept, but it could just be the archaic term.
What the term would be in English speaking countries I have no idea if pocket money sounds archaic. The translation sounds good to me not being a native speaker.
The sum might depend a lot on the country. I have no contacts to 16 year olds so I can't tell.
Is it really? At the very least he can refuse to lock/resolve the question and quit. Perhaps not something to reasonably expect for a single customer. Perhaps he really needs that job to survive. But the notion that you are not responsible for your companies bad behavior that you are part of just because you don't make the decisions is absurd.
I know that, because I was 16 when we did the procedure to allow me be adult (have all the rights of being 21, except vote and consume alcohol)
If I recall correctly, the reason I couldn't get a debit card for my bank account as a 14/15 year old without giving a guardian access to my account is that issuing a debit card required signing a contract and I legally couldn't do that.
Minors do sign things, they just have no legal validity for the most part (I think employment docs for kids over 14/16 might be an exception, but a lot of states regulate that and mandate an adult's consent as well).
If this were the case they someone under eighteen would not be able to buy anything in a shop. That is a contract.
Wouldn’t this be the parents signing up for the account?
The thing is, most parents wouldn't even think "Oh, you'll need to do that in my name." when their kid says they want to build some website and put ads on it. They just think "Oh that's cute, we'll figure out the money stuff later."
I certainly wouldn't think that, as it sounds like horrible idea. Your teenage child posts one picture of themselves in a compromising situation, and suddenly you're lost all access to your accounts for the rest of your life. I'll pass, thanks.
And, yes, I get the "educate your children" thing.. but children do stupid things. Heck, an adult lost their gmail account forever because the sent a picture of their child to their doctor; one the doctor asked for.
All the bad press didn't sort that out? That kind of thing shouldn't happen in the first place, but we can usually expect that once it hits headlines some PR drone swoops in to fix the issue.
He still doesn't have access to his accounts.
If a sympathetic police department had not offered to navigate the (likely complex) process of restoring their copy of his data to him, he would have little hope of recovering the data, either. (My hat's off to whomever made that decision, because my guess is other considerations would almost always prevail.)
If federal investigators had not been quite so favorable in recognizing the nature of the situation, that component alone could have easily ruined him.
I'm also unaware of what his legal and other professional fees have been in all this, but I would imagine Google has done nothing to reimburse him for his expenses, much less compensate him for the time wasted and incredible stress that had to place on him and his family.
Beyond all that, getting SEO bombed as being potentially involved in the production and distribution CSAM is not a positive outcome for anyone who values their privacy or wants to ever have a normal interaction with a new employer or any other entity that may search his name. Beyond that, those who regularly fill out official forms relating to background and behavior will forever have to answer some questions differently and jump through the additional hoops an experience like that would trigger.
His outcome has been one of the least-terrible possibilities, but I hope he sues Google in a very public and embarrassing way, because whatever damages are awarded will be a rounding error to them.
Finally, the process itself is by no indications anything but still completely broken.
Your suggested "fix" is anything but.
What annoys me is, just this week Meta tried to claim that they were basically a social infrastructure that is essential everyone uses and relies on and that they shouldn't be held to blame for what people see on there when it's legal to post. While at the same time, these companies don't want to act like any of the other infrastructure. Ban people for no reason, no recourse, and no come back. While at the same time claiming they're there for the people and are providing a public service.
I'm not sure what mindset drives people to say "even if you didn't commit a crime, you're guilty of the appearance of that crime, which is good enough". Social media outrage mobs perhaps, but my money is more on "this user puts us at risk of criminal prosecution". A lot of companies treat CSAM detection & removal as a subdepartment of risk management, which means lots of "shut the fuck up and go away".
Honestly, if you're making money from something you should have it away from your personal things. Just like how you shouldn't have AWS activated for your main amazon account.
While it's happening, it can be done using the parent's identity. After that, the same logic that prevents a minor to commit, because limited responsability, should be applied to avoid perpetual consequences.
But as usual, companies apply draconian measures that governments can't. Some day we'll finally get that regulation that draws a line between utilities and publishers...
Technically true, but the government often uses regulations and investigatory powers to compel private corporations to enact draconian regulations that the government cannot enact on its own.
I don't see how that's relevant here. Can a minor have an electricity contract?
Fun times!
For other services there is enough bureaucracy that it's easier to avoid by not providing the service to minors.
It's also easier to ban accounts for life when they lie about who they are. You don't run the risk of aiding fraud and being fined if you make a mistake, because you banned them.
There was nothing preventing the kid from creatibg content. It was in using Ad Sense to make money off it.
It doesn't mean that it shouldn't though, either. I can't imagine any other way around this that doesn't amount to forcing a company to provide a service to someone they have rational reasons to not trust, which seems like globally at least it could cause more problems than it solves.
To be clear I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage a company to re-consider when the person is older, but it's hard to see how they should be forced to.
Nothing wrong with that. Just do it. Force them to provide service to the kids they banned for life due to frivolous violations of contracts nobody really reads anyway.
> it's hard to see how they should be forced to
It's really easy actually. Someone getting permabanned from a service for the unforgivable offense of being a child is completely out of proportion.
We already force them to provide service to the disabled and impaired without discrimination. It's okay to do it. Corporations don't have feelings. Nobody really cares how hard life is for the hundred billion dollar corporation either.
Growing up with the internet it always felt these companies were playing with fire. I can't explain it. The 90s were a wild time I guess. That generation knows about using fake names and addresses.
I guess I have never seen these businesses as proper businesses like the local mom and pop shop whose owner you know and respect and who respects you.
But google and other such companies always feel like they are trying to use you and you are trying to use them.
Granted this was 15 or so years ago so things might have changed since then.
Suddenly: "Hey, Google! I'm three years old, better ban me!"
Specially, if you the intend is to "protect" children, this is not helpful.
No, rather, current US law means that technically minors can't enter into contracts until age 16, and many provisions aren't enforceable until 18 or local age-of-majority. Broadly, because of child labor laws, it's not possible for actual children to enter into work/employee relationships or sign contracts legally, just period. This is supposed to stop exploitation of children (sign this stupid contract and now you're encumbered without being fully cognizant of what that means or entails).
PayPal really kept a dormant account with an underaged persons PII for 7 years? Interesting.
Paypal was founded before there were any laws about age for signing up for things online, and minors are legally allowed bank accounts that their guardians don't have access to. (Or at least they used to be allowed: I had one at 14 in 2002).
They figured out that I made my account a few months before my 18th birthday and permanently locked my account.
It seems all of this is arbitrary more or less random bullshit.
-Everyone knew a person back in the day who signed up for the CD clubs promising dollar CD's, or 10 for a dollar. Whatever the various deals were. -With those deals came a commitment to buy 10 - 20 more albums at full price. -You sign a contract agreeing to this. -So the friend-of-a-friend signed it while under 18 and a minor. -They then tell the CD club that the agreement is null and void on account of them not being legally able to sign a contract, and after getting their 10 CD's for a dollar or whatever, to cancel their account.
Given that this was 16 years ago, it would be nice to get second chance..
It's pretty shitty to do a life time ban on their accounts for minor things like that.
If you weren't 18, how did they know who you were?
20 years later, I'm still banned (well, last I checked was probably 5 years ago). Funnily enough, my day job has me interacting with AdWords pretty regularly.
Also, FWIW you can probably sign up with an EIN, just not a personal account with your SSN.
I can see both (all?) sides of this:
- As a society we ought to be forgiving of harmless youthful indiscretions
- As a business you shouldn't have to give second chances to people who blatantly defraud you
- There is a big can of worms when it comes to doing business with minors on the internet. I don't think there's a solution as easy as "well when they're 18, let them log into their account and update their age to acknowledge that they were using the service as a minor" or "just let people open multiple accounts (with wildly different ages) under their name."
Google keeping "limbo" accounts is dystopian, and seems like a GDPR violation to me.
If a liquor store had caught me with a fake ID, I wouldn't consider it dystopian if they put my name on a list and kept it in the back.
It wouldn’t make sense to refuse to sell you liquor when you’re in your 80s though.
https://gdpr.eu/recital-47-overriding-legitimate-interest/
> The processing of personal data strictly necessary for the purposes of preventing fraud also constitutes a legitimate interest of the data controller concerned.
I have absolutely no idea and am not a lawyer, it just seems to me that the word "strictly" is meant to indicate that it isn't pixie dust companies can sprinkle on any piece of information as they choose. The rest of the language here seems to stress that there has to be some sort of test which demonstrates that the interests of the controller overrides the interest of the data subject.
I agree with your statement though, but the GDPR issue is the retention time, not a DSAR issue.
If you work in the EU, have a chat with your DPO/Privacy team cause I bet they would actually find this an interesting conversation too.
The problem described in the post is that the user has a shadow, inaccessible disabled account that they can't do anything about, forever, and that's a problem.
>Isn't that just isomorphic to demanding Free Ban Evasion for All?
I think it would be isomorphic to Google implementing verification on account creation, thereby preventing this scenario from happening in the first place.
They did, though. They straight up asked the kid if he was 18, and he lied and said "yes". I don't know what you want here, you want Google to... protect it's customers from their own fraud? Does any other industry do that?
(full disclosure: I work there, but on open source firmware and know nothing about Adsense)
Just to point the obvious, but corporations do not have any inherent right, and this specific one is already denied on some circumstances.
Regulated utilities, companies representing the government, companies handling infrastructure, etc.
If we were talking about gmail that would be one thing, but internet advertising as a utility is too far by far.
Says who? Society can easily make it so they have to. Besides, "fraud" is a bit too strong a word for a kid that simply didn't care about some company's idiotic "you have to be 13 to post here" message on the sign up screen.
This is what you get when you have no humans in the loop.
Google's growth rates are starting to plateau, and they might want to revisit the legion of people they've robobanned from spending on their platforms.
Fraud occurred here. Google just shuffling the shells might be aiding and abetting fraud.
(The law here isn't set up just to protect Google; nor is it set up to just protect the kid. It ties into broader societal protections against child exploitation and child labor. So Google runs the risk of tripping over criminal liability, in which case the end result is no longer in the hands of any of the immediate parties. Their policies are maximally paranoid to avoid that outcome).
Utter nonsense.
"Hold on, you are 13? Get your parents to call us, they'll have to set up that account for you"
b) Worries about child labor: already happened. Google profited from his activity already. It's just the kid not receiving anything.
Complained and got unbanned.
AWS has even a notary(!) based process to recover accounts.
It is pretty normal to recover bad things on non-Google sites by getting a human into the loop, especially if money is involved.
Weird, they banned my account for that. Tried AWS when it was brand new and assumed they'd just drop the instance when the free tier expired.
Google does not offer Adsense/Admob support for ordinary people. No way to reach them.
But stealing a trivial amount of money from a corporation, well that's certainly deserving of an Internet Death Penalty.
It was only $300 and it was never paid out (since it needed more verification to pay out). If anything Google /made/ and extra $300 (they made more than that since the $300 is after their take). Also it wasn't "stolen" it was earned on a YT channel.
Not really, since they can cash it out when they're 18, and unclaimed but earned funds on an active but unverified AdSense account don't just disappear into the ether - so on Google's balance sheet, they don't have an extra $300.
Surely Google writes off old "debts" after a period of time. Maybe not? I guess they will make interest off it at a minimum.
I think this is poor writing from the 'Product Expect' person - the 13 year old already has an adsense account that is 'active' but 'unverified', but verification is still possible.
> If he tries to apply again when he is 18 he will be refused on the grounds of already having an account, even though he will have abandoned it, it's still there.
but he's not re-applying, just verifying the existing account. The parent here did not indicate that 'verification' is now unavailable, just that the parent can't input their own name into the verification form.
If the teen entered into a lied about his age in a labor contract, performed the labor, and the employer hold the money after discovering the correct age, he would probably end in jail. Yet it's almost the same situation.
They seem to have engineered a set of rules where they work around having to ever pay a bunch of people for content that was produced and had ads displayed on it.
Maybe the kids can't legally sign a contract, but Google still made money from them. Has Google forfeited this money or are they profiting off of child labor?
Not that this matters as much, but I'd like to point out that even if this is the case that the money is returned to advertisers, Google may still reap non-trivial benefits from this chain of events in at least these ways.
> Depending on the amount and length of time the money is held, this might add up to a substantial dollar value in interest payments they're making by holding onto the cash. The interest generated by temporarily holding $80 here and $400 there times thousands and thousands of users, held for a while, could be a non-trivial amount of cash in a long timeframe.
> Google simultaneously screws over advertisers (garbage and/or fraud clicks) at the same time as they sometimes give away these freebie clicks (unpaid kids' clicks) back to their advertisers. Now think about advertisers' perceptions of Google for their business. It can be argued that Google is essentially banking on the goodwill from the kids' ad clicks being returned (giving the advertisers a freebie) to makeup for however much they piss off advertisers for the garbage fraud clicks that they receive. If Google can bank on "stealing" some percentage of clicks constantly, that might be enough for them to partially make up just enough for the bad clicks they send their advertisers. That could arguably materially impact their business prospects.
He's in his mid thirties now, and Paypal banned his account without warning, when he phoned them up they said it was because he was under 18 when he signed up.....19 years ago.
Now I still use adsense, but now it is through a 3rd party which takes a hefty cut of the profits.
If adsense is your sole income, you should probably diversify. Anyone can get you permanently banned unless you are a well known youtuber.
Around 2003 I purchased a CPU from eBay with PayPal. It never shipped because it was a scam. My credit card company refunded my money, but PayPal demanded I pay them. I refused and they banned my account.
It took almost a decade before a class-action lawsuit forced amnesty at PayPal. I use it now because it is convenient to have everything go through one service that I can control. But if they did this again I wouldn't use them again.
Hopefully a class-action lawsuit can still work against a giant like Google. If the US would get its head out of its arse and pass legislation like GDRP, we might actually have a chance at the right to be forgotten.
That's as reliable as it gets.
If you need to be at least 18 to use a particular service, and they're going to verify at some point, that point should be at the very start.
Of course it can't be verified now, but what would prevent the son from completing the verification in a few years when he is actually 18?
Cowards.
At this point, I consider most American companies as an active threat to me, especially if I used them before 18.
Switched email addresses and used that instead. Although I've not used PayPal in a good while because it just randomly rejected transactions for no clear reason.
- Is the '18' adjusted when the local age of legal majority is not 18?
- Are there jurisdictions where this policy is in clear conflict with local law or case law?
I believe it will be increased if the age of majority is above 18, but has a lower limit of 18 even if the local age of majority is below that.
- Are there jurisdictions where this policy is in clear conflict with local law or case law?
I'm not sure how it could be, generally companies are allowed to ban a customer for almost any reason (with certain rare exceptions). I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where "I lied about my age when I was a kid" is a protected class.
Brazilian here. I just found one case where a judge legitimized a contract after a 16 year old misrepresented her age in order to contract a service and then tried to nullify the contract by claiming she was a minor at the time. Essentially the Google situation but reversed.
Seems like a nontroversy.
“Cannot the boy withhold payment until he turns 18 years? He will lose it to inflation and all but at least he will get some due, right?”
It’s a little weird not being able to suggest a solution when my whole life runs on Adsense money.
Permanently locked out. Tried to get back in after I turned 13, no luck. Well crap.
That's literally how I ended up `donatj` instead of `jdonat` basically everywhere - got permanently locked out of jdonat@yahoo.com
I have a fair number of active accounts to this day that I've had since before I was 13 cough ebay cough in the late 90s. I'm scared one day they're going to cross reference the creation date with my current age and be jerks about it.
So as far as I can tell there’s plenty of not so clear things that will get you banned from google ads, don’t build your life and business around that advertising stream is what I learned.
That and that there are better advertising avenues for the niches I tend to care about.
Not to mention all the sketchy or pointless webpages and apps which are there exclusively for the ad revenue and are really abusing the platform.
I don't have time to deal with their accounts getting locked and so on, even if there are other issues.
Granted they also don't get free reign on the internet / outside parental view anyhow.
Google not having real human support is unbelievable.
Only users that generate large revenue can access Chat option.
For the rest, the only option is to write to support community. It's deliberate: feels like there is support but there is none.
To comply with US legal regulations my company had to: verify the legitimate identity of account holders via SSN or other means, confirm they are over 18, confirm they aren't on a specific list of financial fraudsters or entities blacklisted by the US government, etc. If we didn't do this properly for every single user we could have been liable for all kinds of nasty legal ramifications, including losing various legal operating licenses we worked very hard to obtain.
A kid claiming they are older than they are is relatively low on the scale of identity fraud, but it is still a form of direct identity fraud and would have direct legal consequences if we allowed it through. To open the account, they had to have put in a false statement about their age. Verification isn't instant, it takes time to process, so you can easily open an unverifiable account on many services including Adsense, but it will forever remain unverified if you cannot provide legitimate verification info. I am sympathetic that someone of that age might not understand the consequences of their actions, but they claimed to be someone they are not (specifically an older person). Once you do that, you can't go back and claim to be another individual. They can find an adult and have an adult open an account, which would have various legal ramifications for that adult individual who owns the account, but it would be a new account for a new individual just as with Google Adsense.
Also some of the comments about data and GDPR are a bit absurd. You cannot commit fraud, spam, or otherwise violate terms of service, then demand all your data be erased under "GDPR" so you can open a new account and do it over again without recourse. We had constant repeat violators trying to game our onboarding and sign back up after being banned or denied an account. Showing any form of "grace" around previously closed or banned accounts was taking a big risk. We were able to do so on occasion, but only because we operated at a small scale, so an admin could look deeply into individual circumstances and make exceptions. Google Adsense likely faces orders of magnitude higher levels of abuse, and it makes sense for them to not reopen accounts for any reason to minimize their risk exposure. Yes it is unfortunate for those who were banned for a "minor" reason but there isn't much else they can sensibly do.
"he has already earned over £300" implies he's in the UK, so UK GDPR applies.
> The processing of personal data strictly necessary for the purposes of preventing fraud also constitutes a legitimate interest of the data controller concerned.
From the Google Security Department perspective, this person is a threat actor.
Google's not gating out under-18-year-olds for fun: they're a business, they'd love to make more money. Contract law in the US forbids people under 18 from entering into broad categories of contract, and Adsense use operates under electronic contract between user and Google where money changes hands in both directions. Google opens themselves up to huge liability if they inadvertently do business with a minor, which is why they're so paranoid about the lock-out.
The latter might be true, but every time Google becomes aware of it they will cancel that account as quickly as they can.
What liability is that? Genuinely asking because I've never heard that concern.
There's very real risk that legitimizing a contract with a child opens Google up to expensive-to-litigate criminal liability.
That would depend on whose laws you were applying. In a lot of places, fraud requires a misrepresentation that's actually material to the transaction, and a court could come down on either side of the question of whether the user's age was material in the necessary way.
> Google opens themselves up to huge liability if they inadvertently do business with a minor, which is why they're so paranoid about the lock-out.
No, they really don't. They might open themselves up to limited liability if they let a minor do something that lost said minor money. They also might not be able to enforce some of the "take it or leave it" provisions of their terms against minors (of course, in a sane legal system they wouldn't be able to enforce those terms against anybody, but you don't see many if any sane legal systems).
But they do not open themselves up to "huge liability".
Nonetheless, they don't choose to take even those small risks. Mostly, I suspect, because the response wouldn't be automatable. Google hates anything that's not automatable, and vehemently resists manually fixing anything. That applies to interacting with adults, too, and to cases where you haven't even actually violated their policies, but the automation happens to be wrong, which happens all the time.
Which is why nobody of any age should be depending on Google.
How expensive would it be to defend these cases in court N times per day in different of jurisdictions? It to have them aggregated into class action?
no, that's not fraud. It might be an element of fraud if it was a loophole you were exploiting to use the account for some fraudulent purpose, but fraud requires theft or similar, not just technical violations of terms.
Seems pretty clear.
b) It's legal speak mentioning "you cannot create a new account" but it doesn't say you can't try to fix the problems about your existing account. The problem is there is nobody to reach for mistakes or downright violations from Google's side. It doesn't work to help people with good intentions realizing their errors.
c) It's not mentioning that you will forever be blocked because you misrepresented your age for whatever the reason (just an unaware click is enough).
If Google was actually serious in enforcing the policy, they would just check any detail that could trigger this user could be below 18 years of age. As you read here, they don't spend much of an effort to avoid this scenario. AI works just to block you, not to avoid your downfall.
d) I wonder Google informs kids this much before making money on free content they upload on Youtube. It's not hard to see this is one-sided exploitation in business sense.
So... pretty clear, yeah.
No need to imagine because I did exactly that (read my other comment). Let's get into this:
> c) It's not mentioning that you will forever be blocked because you misrepresented your age for whatever the reason (just an unaware click is enough).
It is mentioning SPECIFICALLY that. And an unaware click is not enough, you have to go through the trouble of reading the contract (or scrolling past it), checking a lot of boxes, saying you agree to the contract, and that's only after you in your own will and power decided to search for this. You also get to change your birthday once in your Google account if you made any mistakes during singup.
> If Google was actually serious in enforcing the policy, they would just check any detail that could trigger this user could be below 18 years of age. As you read here, they don't spend much of an effort to avoid this scenario. AI works just to block you, not to avoid your downfall.
Then people will complain that they require documentation, privacy this, privacy that. Mind you that I would never submit an ID to Google to verify my identity, but honestly that's the only way they can actually verify your age.
I'm not a fan of Google and it's autobanning processes with no recourse, but this is a special case where I think it's completely justified looking from their side and all the liabilities they have if they decide to backtrack on something like this.
For them someone is going to criticize them either way they take, so they choose the easier and simpler path of permabanning.