Hacker News Reader

Comment by freetanga | Hacker News Reader

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…

View on HN

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.

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.

> 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.

I've still had trivial domestic purchases flagged though fairly infrequently in recent years. I've had $200 in groceries in the US declined. I'd still advise anyone to carry two credit cards from two separate banks. It also helps if you leave a card at a restaurant or otherwise lose.

>You can, you tell your bank that you're about to travel so they can relax whatever system flags it.

I do this every time I travel and yet I regularly get my card locked anyway.

Sounds like you need to shop around for a new bank then if they frequently ignore requests of yours :)

I asked my bank to do that in one case, they basically said "there is no way for us to do that". So instead the only way they can do it is to try calling me on my phone when said transaction is made to confirm, my phone whose SIM won't be compatible with the network halfway across the planet you stupid fucks.

Honestly the only fool proof way is to travel with cash, banks are incompetent.

One of my banks told me that entering travel information wasn't necessary any longer (and in fact there's no way to do it). In fairness though I've had zero issue with overseas charges for years at this point with that bank.

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.

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.

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."

> "We'd just seen hundreds of transactions, these payment confirmations, so then the panic set in - oh my gosh, whose card is this on?," said Georgina.

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.

>Her daughter had managed to spend more than £2,500 on the site but most were small transactions of around £20.

You can't block this without annoying a lot of legitimate customers, so it's a business decision.

The bank can ask for an additional validation on purchases like validating a transaction in a mobile app as part of the payment flow. This is part of 3D Secure and 'Strong Customer Authentication' (https://stripe.com/docs/strong-customer-authentication), and it's a legal requirement in Europe. Having every n-th transaction with Roblox require accepting a notification in your mobile app would stop this sort of issue for 99% of customers.

> 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.

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?

When it’s Monopoly money for predatory games, and the retailer hasn’t lost anything by giving a refund? Yes.

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.

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.

Should everyone be able to get their money back from Apple/Google/Steam/GOG for any digital purchases? After all, the retailer wouldn't lose anything by giving a refund. Only bits changed hands.

Yes, if they didn't authorize the purchase.

> 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.

>> 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?

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-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 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.

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

The payment goes to Apple through teh app store, not to Roblox directly.

Then Apple better hurry up and block Roblox before banks block all payments to Apple stores.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com