Facebook Faces Underage Gamer Lawsuit

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip

And this is pretty much like suing the shop when your kid grabs money out of your wallet and goes to buy himself a Kit-Kat. If your child took money from you without your knowledge, the problem does not lie in anyone but your own stupid, incompetent self, something you only prove further by blaming someone else for it.

Minors aren't deemed able to make financial transactions on their own, so in this case the right of the parent wouldn't be to blame the shop, but to declare the transaction (the buying of the kitkat) null and void.

Really? Cause I haven't in my entire life heard of such thing. They are perfectly able to make financial transactions on their own, what they're not able to do (afaik) is have a credit card (on their own), because that requires being an adult (perhaps it's possible with the signature of one, which, if it's the case, makes this lawsuit even more preposterous). You're saying any parent can walk into a store any underage person went into and bought something and demand their money back, that's just straight up bullshit.

And on another note: sueing a company because your kid did something he shouldn't have certainly reeks of bad parenting, but so far that smell is all we have to go on.
She might possibly be an awful parent, but conclusively stating such when you don't know anything beyond that she sued definitely makes you a douche.

1. The parent has raised the child in such a manner that the child feels it's ok to STEAL from the parent - really think about the severity of this. Put yourself in the situation of that parent and imagine telling your friends "my child stole money from me today" - the parents I know, including my own, would be embarrassed as all hell by their child's action.
2. The parent blames the company the child used to spend the stolen money for "not doing enough to prevent that from happening"

Call me a douche all you like, those two things combined spell a bad parent. Hell, most people would accuse one of that based on first alone, personally I'd say there could be other influences - but it's the second, the inability to accept their own responsibility and deal with their own child instead of blaming someone else, that really cements in it my opinion.

One quick google search for documentation later... [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html]
Facebook credits hardly qualify as "necessities", so a legal guardian would be well within her rights to void a contract. Of course this is merely a legal basis on which she can (partially) base herself when lodging the suit; it won't fully cover her intentions of making Facebook do more to check whether minors have parental consent.

Also: whether transactions of goods are considered "contracts" is generally set by jurisprudence and state laws. Whether this is the case in California I honestly can't say.

And as to your second point: the funds being stolen is - once again - nothing but an assumption, which renders the rest of your argument moot.

 

[Zayle79]

Omigod, Billy bought $500 dollars of Facebook credits with my credit card...not his fault, he's just a kid, doesn't know any better...it's not my fault, because I'm me, and I'm not gonna blame myself...oh! Facebook! Right, it's Facebook's fault, because...they didn't stop him from buying them! And neglecting to stop him is pretty much the same as encouraging him, so that means Mark Zuckerberg is basically the snake from the Garden of Eden. It all makes sense now.

So what's my first action when I don't like something someone has done? Should I try to just get the money back? No, that would be too hard and complicated. I should sue them instead!

Am I missing something, or is that basically this lady's logic?

 

[Vrach]

Spoiler: snip

And this is pretty much like suing the shop when your kid grabs money out of your wallet and goes to buy himself a Kit-Kat. If your child took money from you without your knowledge, the problem does not lie in anyone but your own stupid, incompetent self, something you only prove further by blaming someone else for it.

Minors aren't deemed able to make financial transactions on their own, so in this case the right of the parent wouldn't be to blame the shop, but to declare the transaction (the buying of the kitkat) null and void.

Really? Cause I haven't in my entire life heard of such thing. They are perfectly able to make financial transactions on their own, what they're not able to do (afaik) is have a credit card (on their own), because that requires being an adult (perhaps it's possible with the signature of one, which, if it's the case, makes this lawsuit even more preposterous). You're saying any parent can walk into a store any underage person went into and bought something and demand their money back, that's just straight up bullshit.

And on another note: sueing a company because your kid did something he shouldn't have certainly reeks of bad parenting, but so far that smell is all we have to go on.
She might possibly be an awful parent, but conclusively stating such when you don't know anything beyond that she sued definitely makes you a douche.

1. The parent has raised the child in such a manner that the child feels it's ok to STEAL from the parent - really think about the severity of this. Put yourself in the situation of that parent and imagine telling your friends "my child stole money from me today" - the parents I know, including my own, would be embarrassed as all hell by their child's action.
2. The parent blames the company the child used to spend the stolen money for "not doing enough to prevent that from happening"

Call me a douche all you like, those two things combined spell a bad parent. Hell, most people would accuse one of that based on first alone, personally I'd say there could be other influences - but it's the second, the inability to accept their own responsibility and deal with their own child instead of blaming someone else, that really cements in it my opinion.

One quick google search for documentation later... [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html]
Facebook credits hardly qualify as "necessities", so a legal guardian would be well within her rights to void a contract. Of course this is merely a legal basis on which she can (partially) base herself when lodging the suit; it won't fully cover her intentions of making Facebook do more to check whether minors have parental consent.

Also: whether transactions of goods are considered "contracts" is generally set by jurisprudence and state laws. Whether this is the case in California I honestly can't say.

And as to your second point: the funds being stolen is - once again - nothing but an assumption, which renders the rest of your argument moot.

That's just the thing, this isn't a contract. There's no contract involved. He's not buying a car or a house, he's buying virtual goods, there is no contract in that process. A contract is not an abstract word to throw around, it's a piece of paper required to do certain business that needs to be signed by adults. When you buy a car, sign up for a credit card or a loan or something, you sign a contract. No such thing is done for buying Facebook points, just like there's no such thing for buying Kit Kats, a carton of milk or any other such "simple" product. Besides, for her to void a contract, she must be the one who signed it. There's literally no other way around it to the best of my knowledge, even if the kid used a friend who's 25 or something to sign it, she couldn't do a damn thing because the contract would be in the responsibility of the adult person signing it.

And my apologies on the theft assumption, I misread the OP and thought it was a case where the son used a mother's credit card to buy Facebook credits (which, without her permission, would be theft). Still, what she's filing for is to protect exactly that kind of behaviour, and that's equally irresponsible. It shouldn't be up to someone else to protect you from your kid using your credit card.

Not to mention, it's useless. If a kid's prone to stealing from his parent (or any other adult for that matter), what exactly prevents him from opening a new profile or lying about his age on his current one?

 

[Dastardly]

Like all such lawsuits, this one will no doubt be the subject of much debate on where parental responsibility ends and corporate responsibility begins. There's no question that some and perhaps even most of these games are designed to hook players and get them spending money, but why do so many 14-year-olds seem to have such an easy time accessing their parents' credit cards? I can only guess what would have happened if I'd done such a thing at that age, but I strongly suspect that "apocalyptic" would be a mild way of describing it.

Man, these are getting tougher. But that's a good thing. It means we're beginning to weed through the stupid, easy ones, and get to the cases that ask the right questions.

For me, rather than addressing the issue, I'm more drawn to how we as gamers handle the issue. Already in this thread, we're seeing the reactionary defensive posture -- they take any criticism of a game company's dealings to be an attack on gaming itself. We're not going to get anywhere like that, because it only allows the entrenched mentality to further paint us as unreasonable and immature.

What's more, we're seeing a lot of assumptions. People assume the parent is giving the kid the credit card. People assume it is, in fact, a credit card. People assume the parent is not also punishing the child (though not publicly). And at the root of all of these assumptions is one central misconception:

One side must be completely right, so the other side must be completely wrong.

I'm sure these parents realize they need to keep a better eye on the kids... but why would they tell us that? It's not our business what punishments they've handed down. What we're seeing is them dealing with the other side of the issue: the child-targeting tactics of these types of games.

Supervision in the digital arena is much harder than people think. Internet is everywhere, even if you don't give your kid a laptop, smart phone, or other mobile internet device. Even those parents who really try to stay on top of things are going to miss stuff, and those parents just want to take steps to ensure the system isn't unfairly slanted against their kids' best interests.

I'm usually the first to jump on parents about not taking responsibility. And as that's often part of the problem, I'm sure these parents need to try a bit harder, too. But even I can't ignore the fact that marketing minds have spent billions of dollars on learning how to target ads at kids, and how to manipulate the minds of their viewers. No, it's not witchcraft, but they've got scientifically-proven methods of getting at people -- and even the best parent can't invest billions of dollars on researching how to counter all of it.

Here's what Facebook needs to do:

1. If you're under 16, your account has to be "sponsored" by a parent/guardian's account. Don't like it, don't get a Facebook.

2. Sponsored accounts can't make purchases until they are approved through the sponsor's account. Your parent gets a notification that Jonny is trying to buy credits, and they can approve or deny the request. This is regardless of who is paying. It simply makes sure parents know before the purchase happens, rather than only after.

3. Any changes/approvals over a sponsored account are handled through the sponsoring account, and every action requires a password separate from the login password, which must be entered every time -- so kids can't take advantage of the fact that maybe Mom and Dad are always logged in.

4. Parents should be able to get a Facebook App that can help check for unauthorized accounts in their kids' names -- even if it does something as simple as run a search and post a picture that says, "Is this your kid?." Plenty of parents aren't as tech savvy as their kids, so it doesn't hurt to help get them ahead of the curve a little. I'm sure someone would be willing to create something like that.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip snap

Spoiler: snip

And this is pretty much like suing the shop when your kid grabs money out of your wallet and goes to buy himself a Kit-Kat. If your child took money from you without your knowledge, the problem does not lie in anyone but your own stupid, incompetent self, something you only prove further by blaming someone else for it.

Minors aren't deemed able to make financial transactions on their own, so in this case the right of the parent wouldn't be to blame the shop, but to declare the transaction (the buying of the kitkat) null and void.

Really? Cause I haven't in my entire life heard of such thing. They are perfectly able to make financial transactions on their own, what they're not able to do (afaik) is have a credit card (on their own), because that requires being an adult (perhaps it's possible with the signature of one, which, if it's the case, makes this lawsuit even more preposterous). You're saying any parent can walk into a store any underage person went into and bought something and demand their money back, that's just straight up bullshit.

And on another note: sueing a company because your kid did something he shouldn't have certainly reeks of bad parenting, but so far that smell is all we have to go on.
She might possibly be an awful parent, but conclusively stating such when you don't know anything beyond that she sued definitely makes you a douche.

1. The parent has raised the child in such a manner that the child feels it's ok to STEAL from the parent - really think about the severity of this. Put yourself in the situation of that parent and imagine telling your friends "my child stole money from me today" - the parents I know, including my own, would be embarrassed as all hell by their child's action.
2. The parent blames the company the child used to spend the stolen money for "not doing enough to prevent that from happening"

Call me a douche all you like, those two things combined spell a bad parent. Hell, most people would accuse one of that based on first alone, personally I'd say there could be other influences - but it's the second, the inability to accept their own responsibility and deal with their own child instead of blaming someone else, that really cements in it my opinion.

One quick google search for documentation later... [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html]
Facebook credits hardly qualify as "necessities", so a legal guardian would be well within her rights to void a contract. Of course this is merely a legal basis on which she can (partially) base herself when lodging the suit; it won't fully cover her intentions of making Facebook do more to check whether minors have parental consent.

Also: whether transactions of goods are considered "contracts" is generally set by jurisprudence and state laws. Whether this is the case in California I honestly can't say.

And as to your second point: the funds being stolen is - once again - nothing but an assumption, which renders the rest of your argument moot.

That's just the thing, this isn't a contract. There's no contract involved. He's not buying a car or a house, he's buying virtual goods, there is no contract in that process. A contract is not an abstract word to throw around, it's a piece of paper required to do certain business that needs to be signed by adults. When you buy a car, sign up for a credit card or a loan or something, you sign a contract. No such thing is done for buying Facebook points, just like there's no such thing for buying Kit Kats, a carton of milk or any other such "simple" product. Besides, for her to void a contract, she must be the one who signed it. There's literally no other way around it to the best of my knowledge, even if the kid used a friend who's 25 or something to sign it, she couldn't do a damn thing because the contract would be in the responsibility of the adult person signing it.

And my apologies on the theft assumption, I misread the OP and thought it was a case where the son used a mother's credit card to buy Facebook credits (which, without her permission, would be theft). Still, what she's filing for is to protect exactly that kind of behaviour, and that's equally irresponsible. It shouldn't be up to someone else to protect you from your kid using your credit card.

Not to mention, it's useless. If a kid's prone to stealing from his parent (or any other adult for that matter), what exactly prevents him from opening a new profile or lying about his age on his current one?

Quoting from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)

]

"Contract" means the total legal obligation which results from the parties'
agreement as affected by this Act and any other applicable rules of law.

Admittedly a lovely example of obtuse legalese, but it does stipulate that a "contract" can mean quite a bit more than a piece of paper with two signatures.
The mother also is perfectly capable of declaring any contract (as engaged by the minor) void - after all she still is his legal guardian.

If, as you mention, the kid would've gotten another adult to buy the points in his stead, then she would have to bring legal action against him for dealing with the minor. Facebook would've had a legally binding transaction with an adult, and could not be held responsible in any way.

As to whether Companies should be responsible for the full supervision of their dealings with minors: no. Definitely not.
I disagree with anyone calling her an awful parent without any facts to go on whatsoever, but in the end it's still her job to raise the kid, not Facebook's.

 

[zlesna]

I swear to god this is Kyle's mom! She makes a mistake in parenting and blames it on everyone but herself. Had I ever stolen my mother's wallet Death would have come for my soul!

 

[Vrach]

Spoiler: snip snap

Spoiler: snip

And this is pretty much like suing the shop when your kid grabs money out of your wallet and goes to buy himself a Kit-Kat. If your child took money from you without your knowledge, the problem does not lie in anyone but your own stupid, incompetent self, something you only prove further by blaming someone else for it.

Minors aren't deemed able to make financial transactions on their own, so in this case the right of the parent wouldn't be to blame the shop, but to declare the transaction (the buying of the kitkat) null and void.

Really? Cause I haven't in my entire life heard of such thing. They are perfectly able to make financial transactions on their own, what they're not able to do (afaik) is have a credit card (on their own), because that requires being an adult (perhaps it's possible with the signature of one, which, if it's the case, makes this lawsuit even more preposterous). You're saying any parent can walk into a store any underage person went into and bought something and demand their money back, that's just straight up bullshit.

And on another note: sueing a company because your kid did something he shouldn't have certainly reeks of bad parenting, but so far that smell is all we have to go on.
She might possibly be an awful parent, but conclusively stating such when you don't know anything beyond that she sued definitely makes you a douche.

1. The parent has raised the child in such a manner that the child feels it's ok to STEAL from the parent - really think about the severity of this. Put yourself in the situation of that parent and imagine telling your friends "my child stole money from me today" - the parents I know, including my own, would be embarrassed as all hell by their child's action.
2. The parent blames the company the child used to spend the stolen money for "not doing enough to prevent that from happening"

Call me a douche all you like, those two things combined spell a bad parent. Hell, most people would accuse one of that based on first alone, personally I'd say there could be other influences - but it's the second, the inability to accept their own responsibility and deal with their own child instead of blaming someone else, that really cements in it my opinion.

One quick google search for documentation later... [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html]
Facebook credits hardly qualify as "necessities", so a legal guardian would be well within her rights to void a contract. Of course this is merely a legal basis on which she can (partially) base herself when lodging the suit; it won't fully cover her intentions of making Facebook do more to check whether minors have parental consent.

Also: whether transactions of goods are considered "contracts" is generally set by jurisprudence and state laws. Whether this is the case in California I honestly can't say.

And as to your second point: the funds being stolen is - once again - nothing but an assumption, which renders the rest of your argument moot.

That's just the thing, this isn't a contract. There's no contract involved. He's not buying a car or a house, he's buying virtual goods, there is no contract in that process. A contract is not an abstract word to throw around, it's a piece of paper required to do certain business that needs to be signed by adults. When you buy a car, sign up for a credit card or a loan or something, you sign a contract. No such thing is done for buying Facebook points, just like there's no such thing for buying Kit Kats, a carton of milk or any other such "simple" product. Besides, for her to void a contract, she must be the one who signed it. There's literally no other way around it to the best of my knowledge, even if the kid used a friend who's 25 or something to sign it, she couldn't do a damn thing because the contract would be in the responsibility of the adult person signing it.

And my apologies on the theft assumption, I misread the OP and thought it was a case where the son used a mother's credit card to buy Facebook credits (which, without her permission, would be theft). Still, what she's filing for is to protect exactly that kind of behaviour, and that's equally irresponsible. It shouldn't be up to someone else to protect you from your kid using your credit card.

Not to mention, it's useless. If a kid's prone to stealing from his parent (or any other adult for that matter), what exactly prevents him from opening a new profile or lying about his age on his current one?

Quoting from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)

]

"Contract" means the total legal obligation which results from the parties'
agreement as affected by this Act and any other applicable rules of law.

Admittedly a lovely example of obtuse legalese, but it does stipulate that a "contract" can mean quite a bit more than a piece of paper with two signatures.
The mother also is perfectly capable of declaring any contract (as engaged by the minor) void - after all she still is his legal guardian.

If, as you mention, the kid would've gotten another adult to buy the points in his stead, then she would have to bring legal action against him for dealing with the minor. Facebook would've had a legally binding transaction with an adult, and could not be held responsible in any way.

As to whether Companies should be responsible for the full supervision of their dealings with minors: no. Definitely not.
I disagree with anyone calling her an awful parent without any facts to go on whatsoever, but in the end it's still her job to raise the kid, not Facebook's.

I don't speak legalese, but that doesn't look like it says "any transaction = contract" to me. From what I can read there, you need to find what "this Act" affects and my personal guess is that one time transactions (buying Facebook points, candy, soft drinks and your other "common" items) are not covered by it. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing any proof of it yet and it makes zero sense to me cause it'd open some quite idiotic doors (imagine a parent walking into your store once a day returning something they're not happy their kid bought for whatever reason - might not be likely, but it still shouldn't be legally possible)

And I agree with you in principle, but I still stand by my opinion. Perhaps I'm biased against parents who act this way (the "won't somebody think of the children?!" crowd), but a parent who wants that sort of thing likely wants it because they aren't too capable of doing it themselves.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip snap, snip snip snap

Spoiler: snip snap

Spoiler: snip

And this is pretty much like suing the shop when your kid grabs money out of your wallet and goes to buy himself a Kit-Kat. If your child took money from you without your knowledge, the problem does not lie in anyone but your own stupid, incompetent self, something you only prove further by blaming someone else for it.

Minors aren't deemed able to make financial transactions on their own, so in this case the right of the parent wouldn't be to blame the shop, but to declare the transaction (the buying of the kitkat) null and void.

Really? Cause I haven't in my entire life heard of such thing. They are perfectly able to make financial transactions on their own, what they're not able to do (afaik) is have a credit card (on their own), because that requires being an adult (perhaps it's possible with the signature of one, which, if it's the case, makes this lawsuit even more preposterous). You're saying any parent can walk into a store any underage person went into and bought something and demand their money back, that's just straight up bullshit.

And on another note: sueing a company because your kid did something he shouldn't have certainly reeks of bad parenting, but so far that smell is all we have to go on.
She might possibly be an awful parent, but conclusively stating such when you don't know anything beyond that she sued definitely makes you a douche.

1. The parent has raised the child in such a manner that the child feels it's ok to STEAL from the parent - really think about the severity of this. Put yourself in the situation of that parent and imagine telling your friends "my child stole money from me today" - the parents I know, including my own, would be embarrassed as all hell by their child's action.
2. The parent blames the company the child used to spend the stolen money for "not doing enough to prevent that from happening"

Call me a douche all you like, those two things combined spell a bad parent. Hell, most people would accuse one of that based on first alone, personally I'd say there could be other influences - but it's the second, the inability to accept their own responsibility and deal with their own child instead of blaming someone else, that really cements in it my opinion.

One quick google search for documentation later... [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html]
Facebook credits hardly qualify as "necessities", so a legal guardian would be well within her rights to void a contract. Of course this is merely a legal basis on which she can (partially) base herself when lodging the suit; it won't fully cover her intentions of making Facebook do more to check whether minors have parental consent.

Also: whether transactions of goods are considered "contracts" is generally set by jurisprudence and state laws. Whether this is the case in California I honestly can't say.

And as to your second point: the funds being stolen is - once again - nothing but an assumption, which renders the rest of your argument moot.

That's just the thing, this isn't a contract. There's no contract involved. He's not buying a car or a house, he's buying virtual goods, there is no contract in that process. A contract is not an abstract word to throw around, it's a piece of paper required to do certain business that needs to be signed by adults. When you buy a car, sign up for a credit card or a loan or something, you sign a contract. No such thing is done for buying Facebook points, just like there's no such thing for buying Kit Kats, a carton of milk or any other such "simple" product. Besides, for her to void a contract, she must be the one who signed it. There's literally no other way around it to the best of my knowledge, even if the kid used a friend who's 25 or something to sign it, she couldn't do a damn thing because the contract would be in the responsibility of the adult person signing it.

And my apologies on the theft assumption, I misread the OP and thought it was a case where the son used a mother's credit card to buy Facebook credits (which, without her permission, would be theft). Still, what she's filing for is to protect exactly that kind of behaviour, and that's equally irresponsible. It shouldn't be up to someone else to protect you from your kid using your credit card.

Not to mention, it's useless. If a kid's prone to stealing from his parent (or any other adult for that matter), what exactly prevents him from opening a new profile or lying about his age on his current one?

Quoting from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)

]

"Contract" means the total legal obligation which results from the parties'
agreement as affected by this Act and any other applicable rules of law.

Admittedly a lovely example of obtuse legalese, but it does stipulate that a "contract" can mean quite a bit more than a piece of paper with two signatures.
The mother also is perfectly capable of declaring any contract (as engaged by the minor) void - after all she still is his legal guardian.

If, as you mention, the kid would've gotten another adult to buy the points in his stead, then she would have to bring legal action against him for dealing with the minor. Facebook would've had a legally binding transaction with an adult, and could not be held responsible in any way.

As to whether Companies should be responsible for the full supervision of their dealings with minors: no. Definitely not.
I disagree with anyone calling her an awful parent without any facts to go on whatsoever, but in the end it's still her job to raise the kid, not Facebook's.

I don't speak legalese, but that doesn't look like it says "any transaction = contract" to me. From what I can read there, you need to find what "this Act" affects and my personal guess is that one time transactions (buying Facebook points, candy, soft drinks and your other "common" items) are not covered by it. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing any proof of it yet and it makes zero sense to me cause it'd open some quite idiotic doors (imagine a parent walking into your store once a day returning something they're not happy their kid bought for whatever reason - might not be likely, but it still shouldn't be legally possible)

And I agree with you in principle, but I still stand by my opinion. Perhaps I'm biased against parents who act this way (the "won't somebody think of the children?!" crowd), but a parent who wants that sort of thing likely wants it because they aren't too capable of doing it themselves.

As to whether buying Facebook Points is considered a contract in California I honestly can't say either - details are being left up to state laws and jurisprudence. Necessities (food, shelter) never can be voided, but non-food small transactions occupy a legal grey area.

And for clarification: I'm aware of this law due to personal experience. When I was fourteen or so I thought it'd be cool to get myself a 4inch pocket knife. Bought it without too much trouble, as even then I could easily pass for 18, but my mother was none too thrilled.

Her law degree also cost me the subsequent argument as to whether she could return an item I had bought.

But to come back on topic: one indeed sees a few too many examples of parents trying to delegate responsibilities to companies, teachers, governments, and whomever else catches their fancy. That does not mean, however, that one shouldn't keep in mind that companies (like Facebook!) are aggressively marketing at that very same demographic of young children.

Lovely shades of murky gray, wouldn't you think?

 

[Vrach]

But to come back on topic: one indeed sees a few too many examples of parents trying to delegate responsibilities to companies, teachers, governments, and whomever else catches their fancy. That does not mean, however, that one shouldn't keep in mind that companies (like Facebook!) are aggressively marketing at that very same demographic of young children.

Lovely shades of murky gray, wouldn't you think?

Well yeah, but that's their job, innit?

And if both they and the parents can do their job right, everyone comes out just fine to the other side. I honestly don't see any shades of grey, this isn't like marketing cigarettes or even something as 'controversial' as games made for adults (or older teenagers), these are mostly just toys in digital form and as such, I don't find their marketing to be any more evil than that of, say, Pokemon or even something, while more stimulating, just as heavily marketed as LEGO.

Spoiler: The wonders of capitalism :P