$1400? Really? Sweet Jesus. Imagine what you could get with that money. Wasted on...virtual melons?
12-Year-Old Rings Up $1400 Farmville Bill
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
EroThraX said:
I was under 12 when I was able to withdraw from my savings account on my own. I guess you can have the account set up most any way you'd like, but it certainly is possible. Even then, I'm assuming that Farmville is able to withdraw from any bank account so long as they have the banking account information (I don't play Farmville, so correct me if I'm wrong). The same way he could pay with a credit card that isn't his, I'm sure it was just as easy to pay with a debit account that is his.EroThraX said:
Also:
"A hardcore 12-year-old from the U.K. took a more generous approach, however: He rang up a bill of nearly $1400 playing the game, most of which ended up on his mother's credit card. She got the bad news when her bill arrived last month and she discovered that her son had blown through his own savings of about $440 before sticking her with another $953. Unfortunately, although the charges were made without her knowledge, she's on the hook for it."
Although we don't have 100% access to the details, the assumption being made is more likely in my favour. Look at the keywords that I've made bold in the above quote. Either the reporter has a poor grasp of grammar and semantics, or the heavy implication is that he spent his money first, and then went over to her credit card.
you know this whole you should have known this would have happened is like knowing raptors are going to get you and if your reading this it is already to lat-
sorry candlejack was saying something to m-
sorry candlejack was saying something to m-
wait he bought porn with his 1400 dollars also?Lemon Of Life said:
Not only does this situation boggle my mind, but the responces by our fellow Escapists seem so... uninformed and callous.
First off, very few people seem to know British law. I'll give you a quick run down of what this woman was talking about and how it works. If she pressed charges on her own son, that would mean he has a criminal record. this record does not, I repeat, DOES NOT get taken off, much like in the United States. It simply goes under a sub-section of ones criminal record as a juvenile/minor offense. So let's say we fast forward a few years and this kid wants to get a job. Any employer can demand a background check of a potential employee if said employee would be around either sensitive information (banking info, company secrets, personal records, etc) or legal tender. Considering there would be no asterix on the charge of Identity Theft and Fraud saying "well, he was twelve and it was for Farmville", that means a lot of potential employers can refuse him simply on the grounds that he could steal from them. And think of how many jobs actually require you to be around money!
Second is the way the mother handled the situation. I applaud her for being a grown-up (as a lot of people are not prone to do) and taking responsibility for her son's actions. My problem is that she has every right to every single penny Zynga took from her. I'm not sure why people are saying it involves a police offense to cut off the charges. In the majority of cases, you cna just call your credit card company, they investigate the charges and it's solved within a matter of days, so long as the company comes to an understanding that the charges were not meant to be placed. So the problem lies in that fact that Zygna is claiming that the tender was aquired legally and they are refusing to refund the poor mother. There's just one problem with this: the boy was thirteen! By the Terms and Conditions of using Facebook and all related applications, this is what tears it for me:
15.3 WE TRY TO KEEP FACEBOOK UP, BUG-FREE, AND SAFE, BUT YOU USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE ARE PROVIDING FACEBOOK "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL BE SAFE OR SECURE. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH THIRD PARTIES. IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, YOU WAIVE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1542, WHICH SAYS: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. "WE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK WILL NOT EXCEED THE GREATER OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100) OR THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE PAID US IN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS. APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. IN SUCH CASES, FACEBOOK'S LIABILITY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
Zygna is legally required to pay that money back! The boy went against the Terms of Service, which means the funds are illegally aquired, which means policy 15.3 is in effect due to policy 4.3 (age of user needing to be thirteen). So Facebook shuts down the account as per their Terms of Service and yet none of the money is refunded because the woman never pressed the argument, most likely because she would need to appear in court in Santa Clara County court (as per 15.1). What a scam...
Third and final point is the advise Zygna decided to give to the mother to rub her face in it. They suggested a computer password through the OS. That means the child would still have access to the internet and could still do what he accomplished (which I assume was take the card and enter the information for the purchases) if he asked his mother to go online. The fact is, as a parent, no one can be expected to be over their child's shoulder 24/7. For advise on how to raise a child, a company will never give anything constructive if it means they need to give back money they practically stole.
I hope Zygna gets some karmic justice in the near future...
First off, very few people seem to know British law. I'll give you a quick run down of what this woman was talking about and how it works. If she pressed charges on her own son, that would mean he has a criminal record. this record does not, I repeat, DOES NOT get taken off, much like in the United States. It simply goes under a sub-section of ones criminal record as a juvenile/minor offense. So let's say we fast forward a few years and this kid wants to get a job. Any employer can demand a background check of a potential employee if said employee would be around either sensitive information (banking info, company secrets, personal records, etc) or legal tender. Considering there would be no asterix on the charge of Identity Theft and Fraud saying "well, he was twelve and it was for Farmville", that means a lot of potential employers can refuse him simply on the grounds that he could steal from them. And think of how many jobs actually require you to be around money!
Second is the way the mother handled the situation. I applaud her for being a grown-up (as a lot of people are not prone to do) and taking responsibility for her son's actions. My problem is that she has every right to every single penny Zynga took from her. I'm not sure why people are saying it involves a police offense to cut off the charges. In the majority of cases, you cna just call your credit card company, they investigate the charges and it's solved within a matter of days, so long as the company comes to an understanding that the charges were not meant to be placed. So the problem lies in that fact that Zygna is claiming that the tender was aquired legally and they are refusing to refund the poor mother. There's just one problem with this: the boy was thirteen! By the Terms and Conditions of using Facebook and all related applications, this is what tears it for me:
15.3 WE TRY TO KEEP FACEBOOK UP, BUG-FREE, AND SAFE, BUT YOU USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE ARE PROVIDING FACEBOOK "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL BE SAFE OR SECURE. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH THIRD PARTIES. IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, YOU WAIVE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1542, WHICH SAYS: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. "WE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK WILL NOT EXCEED THE GREATER OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100) OR THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE PAID US IN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS. APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. IN SUCH CASES, FACEBOOK'S LIABILITY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
Zygna is legally required to pay that money back! The boy went against the Terms of Service, which means the funds are illegally aquired, which means policy 15.3 is in effect due to policy 4.3 (age of user needing to be thirteen). So Facebook shuts down the account as per their Terms of Service and yet none of the money is refunded because the woman never pressed the argument, most likely because she would need to appear in court in Santa Clara County court (as per 15.1). What a scam...
Third and final point is the advise Zygna decided to give to the mother to rub her face in it. They suggested a computer password through the OS. That means the child would still have access to the internet and could still do what he accomplished (which I assume was take the card and enter the information for the purchases) if he asked his mother to go online. The fact is, as a parent, no one can be expected to be over their child's shoulder 24/7. For advise on how to raise a child, a company will never give anything constructive if it means they need to give back money they practically stole.
I hope Zygna gets some karmic justice in the near future...
HellsingerAngel said:
They did get there assess kicked by valve if that makes anyone feel better =D.
try living next to one 9pm all i can hear is Hanna Montana scum (by the way that stuff make my ears bleed) at full volume and he screaming when ever she gets the slightest bad news, eg. (mum) huny, we need to turn your pocket money down from £5000 a month to £4500 a month, bam she is screaming all night an sobbing. Well i imagine that is a scenario i could predict happeningOnyx Oblivion said:
If the kid bought $1400 of clothes and then his mom burnt them then I would agree. But the $1400 wasn't spent on anything of actual use. I imagine the last thing his mom would want him to do is keep playing the game that lost her over a grand. That would be sending the wrong signal. Obviously if he invests the time to play it and wants so much stuff on it that he would be willing to go through his own savings and then his moms money then it means quite a bit to him. Taking that away is the start of a good punishment. $1400 of items on farmville is likely to mean as much to his mom as any other person that doesn't play. They have no use or value. Getting rid of it seems like a loss only to the son, and it's not like you'd want him to keep playing after.Targie said:
Wow, I could see spending a few bucks of you allowance or something, but 1400? That's just insane! Thats over 8500 Farmville cash, have no idea what you would need that much of.
Whaa? Kids in general have no idea the value of money. That's because they're kids. They don't have to work to earn money. They don't buy the things that they want. That's what parents do and if they want their kids to understand introduce pocket money and saving up for the stuff they want. Boys raised in the same situation have no more concept of money then girls. Ever worked in retail? I have. Boys are just as bad. Both will throw temper tantrums when they don't get what they want.Uberjoe19 said:
I would argue "bucks" doesn't really work when you're talking about British money, but, yeah... this kid is a moron.
Good
I'm glad she's being forced to pay for letting her son (either willingly or through her own uselessness and neglect) get hold of her credit card details
Moronic woman should have kept hold of her money. I'm 17 and I have no idea how or what would be required for me to get any money out of my parents beyond begging at them
I'm glad she's being forced to pay for letting her son (either willingly or through her own uselessness and neglect) get hold of her credit card details
Moronic woman should have kept hold of her money. I'm 17 and I have no idea how or what would be required for me to get any money out of my parents beyond begging at them