Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by flutas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

flutas

> 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.

View on HN

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?

> 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.

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."

>> 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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com