10k gone out of sister account using roblox in 3 months

kunst nugget

Glass fused light wrote: »

Shelflife wrote: »

So youre suggesting that the Mother report it as theft and have her son arrested for theft and money laundering ?

If the son knew that he was spending the money and that he was spending without permission and that he had spent 10K why should the mother not report it?

Report your own eight year old son to the Gardai? Ffs...

hullaballoo

There are some very backwards interpretations of the law in this thread.

A child doesn't have the capacity to contract for things like imaginary coins in a game.

There is a very serious flaw in the game or the payment software that doesn't require an adult to log in for each individual payment. Many apps have such a feature and it's remiss of a game for children that accepts payments for in-game options not to have very bloody good security around that, not least because it's wide open for someone to sue them on the basis that they have taken money without authorisation, which is a wrong known to the law by many names.

Automated payments in general have to be crystal clear and have the full authority of the person whose account money is being taken from by the person taking the money. For those light on processing power at this stage of the evening, that's the game company and not the eight-year-old.

I'm sure everyone remembers a few years ago, it was possible to set up a direct debit by almost any means, phone, internet etc. even by inadvertence in some cases. Now, quite rightly, the banks require a signed mandate. There must be a reason for that, yeah?

Redsoxfan

hullaballoo wrote:

Now, quite rightly, the banks require a signed mandate. There must be a reason for that, yeah?

No, they don't, unless it's B2B.

Under SEPA CORE, a mandate is not required, but it is recommended.

There are strong debtor protections under the CORE scheme, ie you can easily reject a Direct Debit.

runawaybishop

hullaballoo wrote: »

There are some very backwards interpretations of the law in this thread.

A child doesn't have the capacity to contract for things like imaginary coins in a game.

There is a very serious flaw in the game or the payment software that doesn't require an adult to log in for each individual payment. Many apps have such a feature and it's remiss of a game for children that accepts payments for in-game options not to have very bloody good security around that, not least because it's wide open for someone to sue them on the basis that they have taken money without authorisation, which is a wrong known to the law by many names.

Automated payments in general have to be crystal clear and have the full authority of the person whose account money is being taken from by the person taking the money. For those light on processing power at this stage of the evening, that's the game company and not the eight-year-old.

I'm sure everyone remembers a few years ago, it was possible to set up a direct debit by almost any means, phone, internet etc. even by inadvertence in some cases. Now, quite rightly, the banks require a signed mandate. There must be a reason for that, yeah?

See my post above around child restrictions, which are extensive. Adult accounts, if shared with a child contrary to Xbox conditions, can have all purchasing restrictions lifted.

In this scenario how does the mother show she didn't make the purchases herself and remain unaware of these purchases as every purchase results in a receipt emailed to you?

Glass fused light

victor8600 wrote: »

runawaybishop wrote: »

...Even if you limited it to say 10 euro a day the root issue is the parent chose to disable purchase security.

Yes, I agree with all that. Let's see if they get their money back though. Do you think they would?

Per google the company is reportedly worth over 2.4 billion. With children its largest target market.

I 100% agree that the son should not have access to 10K but that horse has headed off with Donad to buy the irish island in the med.

Viral videos cost money

Glass fused light

Double post

Glass fused light

runawaybishop wrote: »

I am very familiar with Xbox account restrictions.

Child accounts have restrictions on purchases, including parental approval for every purchase, spending limits, online and chat restrictions and age limit restrictions on games. By default all accounts require passkey or password entry on purchases also and every purchase results in an emailed receipt.

MS have very robust settings on child accounts, they are part of the general windows family settings which give full control over what a child account can and cannot do.

Well if the child managed to set up an adult account the company have a wee problem if the child accessed adult material etc.and the first review suggested its not a suitable game for under 13's due to adult content ending up in child games and the parents not being able to restrict friending to a perapproved list. But as I said at the start I don't know the game.
Plus the contract would be void as the child did not have the capacity to enter into that contract as an adult.

runawaybishop wrote: »

As I have said, only Roblox can refund and they would be unwise not to do so purely from a reputational point of view.

Roblox would not have any choice in the money being removed from their account if it was the proceeds of a crime. The victim is made whole if the money can be traced to the account used to purchase goods or services from. Roblox's bank would be obliged to abide by the EU rules

runawaybishop

Glass fused light wrote: »

Well if the child managed to set up an adult account the company have a wee problem if the child accessed adult material etc.and the first review suggested its not a suitable game for under 13's due to adult content ending up in child games and the parents not being able to restrict friending to a perapproved list. But as I said at the start I don't know the game.
Plus the contract would be void as the child did not have the capacity to enter into that contract as an adult.



Roblox would not have any choice in the money being removed from their account if it was the proceeds of a crime. The victim is made whole if the money can be traced to the account used to purchase goods or services from. Roblox's bank would be obliged to abide by the EU rules

The child didn't set up an adult account and have a credit card appear on it magically.

Glass fused light

Redsoxfan wrote: »

No, they don't, unless it's B2B.

Under SEPA CORE, a mandate is not required, but it is recommended.

There are strong debtor protections under the CORE scheme, ie you can easily reject a Direct Debit.

The contract I have with the bank prevents the bank from allowing random strangers taking money from my account. If this has changed under the SEPA rules can you upload a link if you have one please?

My understanding has alwaysbeem that the bank may work on trust with service suppliers and trust that the supplier have actually have received my permission to bill my bank account and that I have given the bank permission to transfer the money to a third party.

If the bank can't prove that I authorised an outward transfer, I expect that the bank make me whole again as they have breached the contract between us.

Glass fused light

runawaybishop wrote: »

The child didn't set up an adult account and have a credit card appear on it magically.

Which is why I asked how the account was originally setup, and what mam knew or did not know about it.

Glass fused light

kunst nugget wrote: »

Report your own eight year old son to the Gardai? Ffs...

If the son knew he was spending 10k and he knew it was wrong; at what age would you not be "ok" with your child taking 10k without permission?

wonski

These companies thrive on this sort of parents mistakes.

I am an adult with psn account and the amount of steps to take to switch auto renewal etc off is annoying. And then it goes back on.

Many companies use these tactics that are perfectly legal yet very fishy.

Strange though that the bank anti fraud system didn't flag any of those transactions.

Checking account regularly is very important these days and with op coming back after 3 months I doubt it will be refunded.

This would open it for abuse by players buying stuff and then blaming their 10 years old.

It's just unusual for someone not checking account or statements for such a long period. This will make the whole issue less likely to be resolved in customer favour.

Glass fused light

wonski wrote: »

These companies thrive on this sort of parents mistakes.

I am an adult with psn account and the amount of steps to take to switch auto renewal etc off is annoying. And then it goes back on.

Many companies use these tactics that are perfectly legal yet very fishy.

Strange though that the bank anti fraud system didn't flag any of those transactions.

Checking account regularly is very important these days and with op coming back after 3 months I doubt it will be refunded.

This would open it for abuse by players buying stuff and then blaming their 10 years old.

It's just unusual for someone not checking account or statements for such a long period. This will make the whole issue less likely to be resolved in customer favour.

You have to ask for statements these days as an add on, so, mam may not have gotten any paperwork. The bank will be able to check if and when electronic access was made.

I use a specific account for my fixed term contrats DD's I transfer in the total (monthly * year) cash at the start of the contract and check the account every 6 months or so when the semi annual paper statement comes in. I,don't have 10k sitting in it. I have savings accounts I check once a year when the statement comes in too.

Again if money is missing I expect that the bank prove that they had proper authority to pay out the money rather than me trying to prove they did not as I did not have access to the data used to approve the transfer.

Credit Checker Moose

Strange though that the bank anti fraud system didn't flag any of those transactions.

This also has me puzzled. I get stopped buying a burger in Moscow but yet it allows 10K to go unchecked?

The bank has some questions to answer here but don't hold your breath waiting for answers.

wonski

Glass fused light wrote: »

You have to ask for statements these days as an add on, so, mam may not have gotten any paperwork. The bank will be able to check if and when electronic access was made.

I use a specific account for my fixed term contrats DD's I transfer in the total (monthly * year) cash at the start of the contract and check the account every 6 months or so when the semi annual paper statement comes in. I,don't have 10k sitting in it. I have savings accounts I check once a year when the statement comes in too.

Again if money is missing I expect that the bank prove that they had proper authority to pay out the money rather than me trying to prove they did not as I did not have access to the data used to approve the transfer.

When a card is used online then the authorization is granted if the details match.

The money didn't go missing. It wasn't fraudulent. Not sure why the bank has to prove anything.

And for all others if possible use credit card for this kind of services. Their anti fraud departments are way better and on the ball than regular accounts teams.

They protect their own money instead of yours

firemansam4

It's a very easy mistake for a parent to make if they are not familiar with this kind of thing.
I linked my xbox to my windows account a few years back, purchased gold membership just on that account and would let my son play Minecraft on it sometimes.

When I purchased Minecraft I did not take any security restrictions off and it automatically kept the debit card details for any future purchases on it.
So I had to delete my card details off after the purchase.
I found out how to add password restrictions to purchases after this, but it was something I had to look up to find out how to do.

wonski

firemansam4 wrote: »

It's a very easy mistake for a parent to make if they are not familiar with this kind of thing.
I linked my xbox to my windows account a few years back, purchased gold membership just on that account and would let my son play Minecraft on it sometimes.

When I purchased Minecraft I did not take any security restrictions off and it automatically kept the debit card details for any future purchases on it.
So I had to delete my card details off after the purchase.
I found out how to add password restrictions to purchases after this, but it was something I had to look up to find out how to do.

Completely agree and I do believe there should be restrictions in place for this sort of transactions. 10k is a lot of money.

EU done some job on roaming and data charges. This should be next.

And don't start some of you here with parents responsibility because the reality is one box ticked can cost you thousands of euro for something worth peanuts.

We hate regulations, but certain operations in gaming industry are just disgusting. I consider meself technically minded when it comes to this sort of traps and still get caught once in a while. It only takes one unaware person to let the kid buy a new Dacia car in a pointless online game.

That's just ridiculous.

ezra_

Just a couple of points.

The first transaction - where the card was entered by the adult would have been a secure transaction (as it probably would have gone through 3DS). This shifts the liability away from the merchant, apart from issue of quality.

However, every subsequent transaction is actually initiated by the merchant, as the card has been tokenised and neither the cardholder is entering their card details, nor is the transaction being put through 3DS. Therefore liability returns to the merchant and the ability to raise a chargeback on the basis of a fraudulent transaction becomes again a potential course of action.

If the OP's sister gave her card details directly to the game provider, she may still be able to raise a chargeback but she will have to have a good answer to the question 'why is this transaction valid, but these ones are not?'

If, as I presume has actually happened, she gave her card to Google Play / Apple App Store and the token was used by the game, she will have better luck as the 3DS transaction is for a third party and not connected to the string of 10k payments.

A lot of the above will change come September, but as it stands, she had this issue under the existing scheme and not the forthcoming PSD 2 / SCA regime.

TL;DR - get on to the bank ASAP and start raising hell. Also she should open something like a Revolut account so she can put a collar her child's spending.

uck51js9zml2yt

I got hit for €80 with my son playing a game once. Thankfully it was linked to revolut and limited to the amount on the card.

hots

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

This also has me puzzled. I get stopped buying a burger in Moscow but yet it allows 10K to go unchecked?

The bank has some questions to answer here but don't hold your breath waiting for answers.

Because an unexpected purchase in a foreign country looks like CC theft. A pattern of consistently buying microtransactions, probably on a console that has bought games before, over a number of months would just look like 'normal' spending patterns.

Glass fused light

When a card is used online then the authorization is granted if the details match.

The money didn't go missing. It wasn't fraudulent. Not sure why the bank has to prove anything.

And for all others if possible use credit card for this kind of services. Their anti fraud departments are way better and on the ball than regular accounts teams.

They protect their own money instead of yours

The money left the mothers account on the request of a third party.

The third party requested a money be transferred to their account. The third party claim that mother authorised the money be transfered.

The bank did not have direct contact with the mother to confirm that she authorises the transfer. They have an obligation in the contract betweem themselves and her to safegard the money.

A DD is a 3 way contract. The ac holder authorises the 3 party to submit a request for payment.
They authorise the bank to accept the request and make the payment on their behalf.
A CPA is a 2 way contract only between the 3 party and account holder and as I undersrand the bank never receives authorisation from the account holder.

The money is missing from her account
The third party has an game account in her sons name not her name. The bank is now missing proof that the mam made the purchase, prompting a payment request and that mam has given the bank authority to pay the amount over to a third party.

The company will argue that she authorised both.
She will argue that her son can not and was not acting on her behalf.

Edit in fact unless they are uber rich and as he spent 10k she can also argue that he had no idea about what he was doing.

shamrock55

Is Rob lox on PlayStation?, I'm presuming a game was purchased on the PlayStation store at some stage and the credit card details were saved, the young lad then had easy access to it

kunst nugget

shamrock55 wrote: »

Is Rob lox on PlayStation?, I'm presuming a game was purchased on the PlayStation store at some stage and the credit card details were saved, the young lad then had easy access to it

They don't say what platform it was on but it's easy enough to set up two step authorisation on the likes of the Xbox or Playstation where it requests a password and a PIN sent to a mobile phone linked to the account before authorisizing a purchase.

Glass fused light

wonski wrote: »

It only takes one unaware person to let the kid buy a new Dacia car in a pointless online game.

Sorry very off topic but that is one brand that can now fcuk right off.
Sex toys, children and scouts shows they really know and respect their market.

Any brand which is willing to put sex toys/aids and children in the same ad are way too "liberal" for me, I file them under Pervs. Sex sells but don't try associate sex acts with children.

ohnonotgmail

Glass fused light wrote: »

Sorry very off topic but that is one brand that can now fcuk right off.
Sex toys, children and scouts shows they really know and respect their market.

Any brand which is willing to put sex toys/aids and children in the same ad are way too "liberal" for me, I file them under Pervs. Sex sells but don't try associate sex acts with children.

what?

Glass fused light

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what?

Watch where mammy is shopping before taking the childern off to the countryside to meet the scouts.

This is the full ad, but the singing manaquins are cut from the broadcasts I have seen.

I know I am getting old and grumpy, but as we have young impressionable minds calling in I have begun to check that what I am watching is age appropriate for children. (I had a serious incident about the white bearded red coated lad a little while back. )
IMO that ad is just wrong. She did not need to be shopping for sex toys and it's not acceptable associating childen with adult sexual activity.

ohnonotgmail

Glass fused light wrote: »

Watch where mammy is shopping before taking the childern off to the countryside to meet the scouts.

This is the full ad, but the singing manaquins are cut from the broadcasts I have seen.

I know I am getting old and grumpy, but as we have young impressionable minds calling in I have begun to check that what I am watching is age appropriate for children. (I had a serious incident about the white bearded red coated lad a little while back. )
IMO that ad is just wrong. She did not need to be shopping for sex toys and it's not acceptable associating childen with adult sexual activity.

what?

gmisk

Glass fused light wrote: »

Watch where mammy is shopping before taking the childern off to the countryside to meet the scouts.

This is the full ad, but the singing manaquins are cut from the broadcasts I have seen.

I know I am getting old and grumpy, but as we have young impressionable minds calling in I have begun to check that what I am watching is age appropriate for children. (I had a serious incident about the white bearded red coated lad a little while back. )
IMO that ad is just wrong. She did not need to be shopping for sex toys and it's not acceptable associating childen with adult sexual activity.

Christ on a bike :rolleyes:
At least you recognise you are old and grumpy i suppose...
the "childen" are not associated with adult sexual activity they are out being scouts, they obviously had to stick someone in at that point so it was going to be hill walkers or scouts etc.
Are you not outraged about a man wearing pyjamas? vile sexualised content that it is!

Anyyyyyyway totally bizarrely way off topic......

rock22

Glass fused light wrote: »

Watch where mammy is shopping before taking the childern off to the countryside to meet the scouts.

This is the full ad, but the singing manaquins are cut from the broadcasts I have seen.

I know I am getting old and grumpy, but as we have young impressionable minds calling in I have begun to check that what I am watching is age appropriate for children. (I had a serious incident about the white bearded red coated lad a little while back. )
IMO that ad is just wrong. She did not need to be shopping for sex toys and it's not acceptable associating childen with adult sexual activity.

Are you serious.
She went shopping in a Lingerie shop. Sex toys must be in your imagination
Anyway , way off topic.

Glass fused light

Glass fused light wrote: »

Watch where mammy is shopping before taking the childern off to the countryside to meet the scouts.

This is the full ad, but the singing manaquins are cut from the broadcasts I have seen.

I know I am getting old and grumpy, but as we have young impressionable minds calling in I have begun to check that what I am watching is age appropriate for children. (I had a serious incident about the white bearded red coated lad a little while back. )
IMO that ad is just wrong. She did not need to be shopping for sex toys and it's not acceptable associating childen with adult sexual activity.

Post of the year.