Underage unauthorised in game purchases

Underage unauthorised in game purchases

Author
Discussion

StescoG66

Original Poster:

2,119 posts

143 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
For 3 months now we have been going round in circles with Microsoft and EA Sports, to no avail however wonder if the brains of PH will be able to advise. I'll try to keep it brief.
Christmas time my boy gets XBox360 and FIFA14. Happy days.
Fast forward a month and as part of his 10th Birthday present we have paid for xBox Live for 1year plus made a one off £20 in game purchase. Purchase made by my wife using her credit card.
One week later, we have a series of bills totalling £156 for in game purchasing of FIFA points, despite having parental controls in place. It seems the console stored the card details and thus no password was needed to make these purchases. Case raised with Microsoft to no avail. As far as they are concerned, purchases were made in our house on our console and as such are authorised.
Fast forward a few more days, and NONE of the purchased content is accessible, neither the original £20 purchase nor the subsequent unauthorised points purchases. It would appear that there is an age restriction of 14 on this content, so with my son being 10 his package is now restricted - despite the purchase having been made in the first instance.
In summary we are £176 down on purchases which it would seem he is no longer allowed to access. We were honest about his age when registering for obvious reason so feel we are being punished for this honesty. He initially was able to access the extras but this privilege was withdrawn - in my eyes this now constitutes theft. EA Sports say they are aware of the problem but have no solution as it is an EULA issue, and that the purchases were made via Microsoft so we should contact them. Microsoft are sticking by their guns and refusing any assistance whatsoever as they have paid EA, and referred us to the credit card company to recover monies. They too can do nothing apparently.
Can anyone advise where we stand legally? The product has been sold by them to a user now deemed to be under age and privileges withdrawn, yet no refund is forthcoming. Personally would like it all to be wiped, money refunded and he can just live with the game in its basic form until he is 14. To say we're pissed off is an understatement........... Your thoughts are appreciated

StescoG66

Original Poster:

2,119 posts

143 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
Baryonyx said:
StescoG66 said:
in my eyes this now constitutes theft.
In the eyes of the law, it doesn't. I suspect you'll find it's an issue of contract. The bottom line is, I wouldn't expect you to get your money back because ultimately, it's your card, your console and you (or your partner) authorised the first payment. The simple lesson would be to teach the boy the value of money, because at 10 years old he should understand it doesn't grow on trees.
And to a point I agree with you - in that we were on the verge of chalking this up to experience and carrying on. However that was until they removed ALL purchased content as he is now deemed to be not old enough. It was knowingly sold to a 10 year old, but he is now seemingly not old enough to access what he has been sold . . . . . That is my query. So £176 spend with NOTHING to show for it is where we currently stand . . . . FWIW Jamie tells me no mention of 'purchase' or money was made in the game - he tells me that it simply asked if he would like more points - being a kid he is bound to say yes. So while he is far from blameless, I can understand how it has happened.
Basically you are saying that it is OK to sell something to someone, then after a couple of weeks say we're taking that off you as you're not actually old enough to have it. But we're keeping your mums money.

Edited by StescoG66 on Wednesday 9th April 16:34

StescoG66

Original Poster:

2,119 posts

143 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
Udoubtedly they will - but from a legal standpoint is this permissible? There are many things in 'contracts' that don't actually stand up in law - I was wondering if this was one of those thinga.
Doesn't take away from the basic principle in my eyes of 'theft'