The development of in-app purchases in various apps and social platforms has become more evident at the beginning of the previous decade. The most popular digital markets, Google Play Market and Apple Market develop an explicit set of terms and services for customers’ convenience. However, once the online tools and games became available for minors, or kids aged under thirteen, there was a major shift in the digital policies. In the case of the Lee family, the situation can be discussed through the prism of two aspects.
Speaking of the first aspect, the refund for in-app purchases made by kids has become a widespread procedure since 2014. The court case Amazon.com, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (2014) has proved that children tend to make virtual in-app purchases without considering the consequences of such an act. Once Amazon.com, Inc. won the aforementioned case, all the digital markets provided the policy, according to which, parents were allowed to get a full refund during ninety days since the purchase. As a consequence of this court case, FTC urged Apple, Inc. to refund more than thirty-two million dollars of children’s in-app purchases (Federal Trade Commission, 2014). To avoid possible misunderstandings, app markets started to notify credit card holders about any financial transactions via e-mail. Hence, this clarification makes Friendspot’s refund refusal well-founded in terms of the law. If the purchase was made more than ninety days ago, the user is not implied to return the money.
However, the case can be reasoned from a considerably difficult point of view. Speaking of the evidence provided, Jenny Lee is a twelve-year-old child. According to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, issued in 1997, children aged thirteen and under are not allowed to register on online sources without parental guidance and permission (“S.2326 – 105th Congress (1997-1998): Children’s online privacy protection act of 1998,” 2020). Hence, Jenny’s mother should have agreed to the terms and conditions introduced by the app. In such a way, even without checking the electronic mail, Suzy would have known that the app developers might withdraw money from her credit card. However, Friendspot app does not require any parental permission in terms of registration add, thus, violated the federal act on children’s privacy protection.
Taking these aspects into consideration, one may come to the conclusion that justice should support the Lee family for a number of reasons. First of all, the app owners should submit the fact that the cardholder was notified about the financial transactions during the whole period, as it was not mentioned in the general case information. Second, and the most important aspect, is the fact of federal law violation performed by the app developers. Once Suzy is able to prove that Friendspot allows minors to create in-app accounts without parental permission, the case will obtain national scopes. In such a way, the Congress is able to release a court case concerning Friendspot’s neglecting COPPA. Then, the chances of app owners winning the case are almost impossible, and the company will be likely to be closed and fined. Consequently, Friendspot owners would be obliged to refund all the in-app purchases ever made by minor customers. In conclusion, it might be noted that the best defensive line, in this case, would be to prove the app’s crime against the state.
References
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, C14-1038-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2014)
Federal Trade Commission. (2014). Apple Inc. will provide full consumer refunds of at least $32.5 million to settle FTC complaint it charged for kids’ in-app purchases without parental consent. Web.
S.2326 – 105th Congress: Children’s online privacy protection act of 1998. (2020). Web.