I wish customer service didn't depend upon whether you complain to HN/Twitter/BBC. This disadvantages those who don't want to tell the whole world about their personal issues
I don’t think the bank refunding the money is, or should be, an admission of guilt. It was a “pay this amount of money to make this (wrongly directed) bad press go away”.
So in the end the public complaint was used as a cudgel to take money that wasn’t owed (from the bank).
You know in a chargeback (what the mother most likely did)...the bank claws the money back from the company right?
Additionally, why would their fraud algo not detect "hundreds of transactions" back to back. That is instantly a red flag to almost every bank I've known.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Honestly the only fool proof way is to travel with cash, banks are incompetent.
That said, I almost always have local currency as well. Which post-pandemic and much-reduced travel unfortunately means I have baggies of all sorts of foreign currency for places I may not travel to again at this point.
I do this every time I travel and yet I regularly get my card locked anyway.
It was over many transactions, not a single transaction for £2500, and it's probably likely that the parent had previously purchased whatever the heck is purchasable on this game for their daughter, giving the transaction some sort of signal that it's okay.
You can't block this without annoying a lot of legitimate customers, so it's a business decision.
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.
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?
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.
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."
But surely someone is responsible? If someone's kid goes on a joyride and crashes into your house, is nobody responsible?
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.
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.
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.
It's sad that people and organizations can do things that are widely considered immoral until they're caught by others, and then they're only apologizing that they were caught.
What can you do? Look at people's credit ratings, job histories, etc. like a human being and know that sometimes people are taken advantage of. Don't hate all regulation because the bigger organization really does have a lot of advantages dealing with customers and employees.