In-app purchases: Are parents liable for their children?

Whether the child has their own smartphone or tablet or is allowed to use the parent’s: there are often tempting in-app purchases lurking in apps. These are small or large transactions that allow you to purchase small extras in gaming or sometimes learning apps. This could be, for example, an extended playing time or a new item. Legal disputes often arise when children spend money on extra features without permission.

Legal expert: It is often worthwhile to contradict the providers’ demands

Kathrin Körbes is a legal expert and, according to a press release from the Lower Saxony Consumer Center, explains that minors are generally not allowed to conclude (purchase) contracts without the permission of their legal representative. “That’s why it’s usually worth contradicting the demands.” According to their explanations, giving a child their own smartphone to use the app does not correspond to a purchase permit – the payment remains “pendingly ineffective” if the parents quickly try to withdraw. On the occasion of Safer Internet Day at the beginning of February, the Lower Saxony Consumer Center describes the case of a mother who gave her son her smartphone to use an educational app and a game – the son was not allowed to use his own pocket money for the in-app purchases but spend more money. However, her offspring was smart enough to also charge the mother’s credit card stored in the app store and spent over 2,700 euros on in-app purchases.

Money back: Do parents have to prove that their child has made the payment?

Unauthorized in-app purchases by children usually take place via the app store or the mobile phone provider or a third-party provider. If the former is the case, if you act quickly, the payment can be reversed via the user account. If an in-app purchase was made from a third-party provider via the mobile phone provider, i.e. the payment was added to the next mobile phone bill, the debit must be complained about and lodged with the mobile phone provider. This is explained by the Hamburg consumer advice center.

It may happen that the providers try to reject such claims. On the website of the lawyers Wilde Beuger Solmecke it is described that many providers apparently try to claim that parents are using their child as an excuse for their own in-app purchases. However, this is not an effective argument unless there is evidence. According to the lawyers, the argument that the parents have violated their duty of supervision is ineffective as long as the provider cannot provide evidence of the parents’ negligence. Likewise, providers cannot refuse a demand for repayment of the amount by assuming that the parents have allowed the child to make such purchases. Here too, the burden of proof lies with the provider, who must show that there is a power of attorney from the parents to the child.

Pay-by-call: The connection owner is not liable

If a child uses the pay-by-call procedure for unauthorized in-app purchases, according to a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the connection owner is not liable if the “use of the provider’s services is not attributed to him”. can. Here too, it can be argued that the child used the parent’s connection without permission.

Providers apparently also like to argue with the so-called pocket money paragraph 110 BGB, which states that children can use pocket money that is explicitly freely available to them for any transactions – even without the parents’ renewed permission. However, the pocket money paragraph excludes purchases on account, which is why it only applies to in-app purchases in rare cases: after all, the money is usually debited here and not paid manually.

This is how it works: Technically prevent in-app purchases

Körbes, who clearly states that parents are generally not liable, says: “Password protection for purchases should be set up on every device that minors use.” Despite all efforts to teach children how to handle money responsibly, sometimes the temptation is simply too great. The mother in the case described above was actually able to get back most of the money she lost – but the work is time-consuming. In order to prevent unauthorized in-app purchases, a child account could be set up that the legal representative can monitor – and for which the usage rights can be regulated. For example, Apple has the so-called “purchase request” in family accounts: a child who wants to make an expense must submit the purchase request to their parents before the product can be purchased.

In-app purchases can also be regulated on individual devices: On iOSdevices, in-app purchases can be completely deactivated or provided with a password. Meanwhile, a password lock for in-app purchases can be set up on Android devices. By the way, it is not only important to regulate the in-app purchases yourself, but also to secure other purchases. Vouchers can be purchased for many applications on the Internet, which can then be redeemed without a transaction within the app.

Editorial team finanzen.net

Selected leverage products on Apple

With knock-outs, speculative investors can participate disproportionately in price movements. Simply select the lever you want and we will show you suitable open-end products on Apple

The leverage must be between 2 and 20

Advertising