Inadvertent $1500 in app purchase Tap Zoo - warning!

Thanks, deggie. I'm going to keep on working with it. I'll post when I get a final answer from my credit card company. They are very helpful, so far.

DavidK2010 wrote:

So you think its fine for a game aimed at children to charge £80 for a single in app purchase?

YES or NO?

Yes, I think it's fine. I wouldn't pay it but, if some people will, then that's up to them. Not my business to judge how other people chose to spend their money.

Do not let up, stay in touch with your credit card company and if necessary have them contact Apple Customer Service on your behalf or arrange a conference call with everyone. Perserverance will pay off.

And make sure you have gone in and restricted inapp purchases.

The MINUTE I figured out what was going on, I not only set a new password, but a new Apple ID, AND enabled the restrictions so that NO IN-APP purchases will be made.

I have become ultra-protective of my IPhone since this started and won't let ANY ONE get their mits on it. (I'm just a little bit upset by the $2300 of in-app purchases).

I'll keep the user community posted -- friends of mine have told me they have read about this same thing in a recent periodical; one person cited seeing it on "The Daily Show" -- they even got one of the App providers on the phone live and asked if they would like to talk with an angry parent who had this happen to them. Of course, the app provider declined.

Yes, I saw the piece on The Daily Show. Just remember that The Daily Show is an entertainment/comedy show, not a news show. If you would like to hear the other side on that piece (and you can find it on YouTube) you can read this:

http://zenentrepreneur.blogspot.com/2011/12/top-10-things-daily-show-with-jon.ht ml

Don't get me wrong, I hope you do get your money back, and most people do, but I don't agree that these games are scams, or extortions or anything else like that. And the Daily Show was on Tap Fish, not Tap Zoo.

this is a very strange logic tbh, would the sales person hapilly accept payment from an under 16 let alone a child presenting a credit card? even though the perant/guardian had openned the door, beckonned the child in into the store and was browsing close by. perhaps

No, of course not, it would be illigal let alone immoral to do so without further checks. so would would support the seruptitiously swiping of the card out site of the perant/guadian and the child knowing the pin as 'fair game'?

kids have no real idea of cost let alone value, to make an example, i was with my 7 year old neice, she asked for an item from the shop window. it was a peice of tat that would not last a few minutes, as children do she raised cain. So she was told 'i have no money', to which she replied "thats easy, you can just go to the hole in the wall and get some more".

even stating in large bold text the item costs in real money a child will rarely understand this, they have no concept in relation as we can not conceive the vastness of the universe as adults, we just know it is bigger than Russia or Australiabeven put together.

Apple are not innocent they well know the issue and the hardship caused to their clients 'ignorance'. you could argue Apple is not responsible for such ignorance or their own lack of care (not passing judgement here), if so then have any sort of password in place?

tbph Apple having such a squeaky clean business and quality image it makes no sense to me to allow this activity to continue without at least offering the choice of a one time purchase or the time limit option allowing multi-purchasses after having entered your password.

Currently this is very simular to XBOX LIVE, they sometimes offer a 2 day Gold pass for a £1, as with Apple the only way to pay is credit card, the only way to cancel is to phone immediately (assuming you are aware) or cancel te card and get a new one issued - who needs that inconvenience and why should they when dealing with reputable companies?

this happened to my freind he did so for his grandsons thinking a pound for some peace and quiet was well worth it, who then added DLC maps, several games and it cost £280. You purchase points for so much, then buy with the points removing any association with real money, kids play monopoly or cards with tokens, so why would they think otherwise than free?

companies operating like this do so legally maybe, but should look hard at their moral compasses, it has taken a long time for the general public to embrace online transactions, this type of sales could easily deflate that fragile confidence.

My daughter spent about $1000 on TeamLava apps. Her account was hacked and all of the items that she bought with the in game currency was sold. TeamLava refused to give the items back. Awaiting for apples reply.

I've now set my account to whenever someone wants to make a purchase they must immediately type in the password.

I Have just been stung for £51.03 as my son(11) playing DRAGONVALE on his ipod touch thought he was buying with game money.

He is horrified that this was real money.

I didnt get notification emails until today and i cannot believe how much he was able to spend in a short period on a free app!

Those who say I should be supervising him in everything he does - in an ideal world yes, i have two other children to supervise too , does this mean that i should allow one child time to be supervised at a time. In my house this is impractible.

A manual does not come with the device - perhaps if Apple included this then I would have known that there were certain settings that would prevent apparently free apps making charges.

Apple should have responsibility towards the app - this is not free if it is asking for charges.

I am very disappointed.

A manual does come with the device. In the packaging of the iPhone there was a document that tells you that the user guide is accessible online, and is already bookmarked in the iPhone's Safari. It also tells you that the user guide is available for download at http://support.apple.com/manuals/ or downloadable from iTunes as an iBook.

Regarding Dragonvale, you were not required to supervise your child. All you had to do was read the second and third lines of the description of the app in the App Store when you were considering downloading it.

Those apps simply prey on families with young kids. It is clearly predatory practices. Of course, we all heard about the neo liberal argument that if you were a good parent, you'd have one of those latin nanny who would supervise your kid and that you should read all stuff on the app page, including when half the sentence is hidden behind the "more" link etc. or that such and such amount of money is not too much for a stupid gem for a degraded elite who have too much cash on their hands. In the end, we all know what this is about. No adult in their right mind would buy trivial virtualware to win or advance a game that is clearly geared at children so who will? Worst is that this is made for children to harass their parents into pooring cash into those shady apps to make their child feel good about winning, not unlike virtual casinos one could say. Those are apps for the "haves" to cheat their way into winning by buying out the game with thrash - if you can't afford to win you shouldn't have played. This is so immoral and unethical that you have to be senseless to argue otherwise simply because you can't take it that Apple would take some heat in the forums because of that. Apple should simply take down those shady businesses and side with their user base - and put their multi-level users in their place. Shame on you.

Neo liberal? You wrote this is jest, right?

Conservative would be more correct as all we are saying is take personal responsiblity for your choices. Same thing applies to buying breakfast cereals (shame on those companies with ultra-sugar products that immorally prey upon children), toys, books, etc.

Yes I did, but you got what I mean, I meant no intervention buyers beware fairy tales. We can argue on the semantics. Correcting me on such doesn't make for a great argument, whether or not you'll be garnishing "like" points from your pals. Personal responsability stands nonetheless, granted, yet finding inspiration in other businesses' lack of ethics falls short on edification from where I come from, plus we're talking about Apple and not Kellogg or whatever. I'm getting used to it though as I've witnessed more than once the cynism you multi-level guys thrive on. Most likely if I go too far you'll be pulling out the TOU scarecrow or something lolll. Anyways, it's really your world and not mine. We will never agree on this, it's no big deal. Maybe it's about legislation. I'm not saying it's entirely Apple's fault. Yet I want to see such devs bankrupted. Anyways. Tc.

while agreed the full manual for the iPhones/pads as you say is available on line how many actually read one end to end for ANY device? i rarely do.

what really wrankles with me, to advance in such a game you can buy tokens, doing so you can jump ahead of other players (like me) who will prefer to slog through the 'free' game to advanc. my view is it is not worth the slog the game us not worth my money let alone time, so so in effect so skill or dogedness verses anothers wallet.

move into kids world, they have less ability to combat peer pressure, being succesful in these games can be as important for their 'street cred' as wearing the latest Nikki trainers. and imho the designers play on this 'need' claiming its a free decission by the adult in charge - this adult who trusted Apple and its suppliers to have a decent grasp of what a moral compass is - but recent events mean ths is mistakenly it could be argued!

minority of the over rich and feckless apart, if you asked most sane people (not children) if a single game token was worth $99 where you can not win anything other than a virtual advancemen, would they buy them? so why are these apps allowed to charge without further checks it is actually the owner accepting the real cost - registered user name and pasword would be easy to implement and surely be a worthy precaution.

The apps are not allowed to charge without further checks, as the person buying the app is adequately warned of the potential for losing money three lines into the app description, as well as being given a fine clue that it is possible to restrict in-app purchasing. Which might prompt the more alert person to find out how to do this.

If you do not read the user guide, there is nobody else to blame for not knowing how to use the device.

the problem is (and well known by the app makers), the owners do not understand or forget in-app purchasses can be made if left enabled, in early ownership you do not concider others who may use it later, and by the time you allow this you have forgotten about this prefference..

now the device is left tin chargeof a child who inocently ask's to play lets say 'cards', they tire of it and browse the store for new games, and notice free ones. not many children especially under 12 have any idea real money will be taken and do not read the warnings in their impatience to play, and do not ask. the owner thinks mitakenly that no company behaving with honour would operate in such a way especially for such high ammounts without better checks. this behaviour in my opinion is akin to entrapping an inocent child into a 'clip joint' enviorment but they are not 'heavied' when leaving as they don't actually pay the bill.

these purchasses are often for insane ammounts, no way can the app makers claim it s not ecconomical or practicle to have the need of an in game registered password inserted for such expensive data, obviously the owner could opt out of such protection at their peril, for each such gameto satisfy thos who don't care for the hassle.

i wonder as the transaction is paid via credit card, it is illigal to issue them to persons under 18. is it possible in such cases to hold the app maker as culpble or at least complicit in aiding and/or abetting what is in effect a fraudulant usage of a credit card? no store would accept a child buying goods with one - well would they?

if in law ignorance isnmo defense, then shorely the vendors can't claim ignorance of a child was making transactions usng an adults card as a defense.