Comments on: Dangers of Mobile Gaming: How my son racked up $400 charges playing Tap Fish

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:37:01 +0000

This still doesn’t answer his question (which is a very good one). Don’t you feel you are somewhat responsible too?

You are very quick to blame the company who created the game instead of taking (at least part of) the responsibility for giving your child access to a tool that is not designed for him to play with without supervision. Moreover, you decided that it’s not worth teaching your son that his actions have consequences. Well, guess what, the next time he gets conned, he may not get a refund.

You try to make the company seem the villain, but actually, I see you made a mistake, and the game producer was kind enough to not make you pay, which is very generous of them, seeing how many others wouldn’t have in their place.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:57:49 +0000

My seven year old daughter racked up 450 usd in 5 minutes of charges . really !! Why no safeguards built in for unusual trasactions ??

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:54:09 +0000

This type of software development is nothing short of a trojan horse. They hope you won’t catch the charges that your child makes. So you think the owner should be liable for a purchase of a $100,000 if tapfish put that option on there and a child clicked on it? That’s absurd. This type of software only hurts the industry. The company loses nothing by refunding because there wasn’t any real product in the first place. It was all virtual.

By: Chi Kong Lui

Chi Kong Lui — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:58:17 +0000

[quote=Anonymous]Would you have granted the refund? And if so, for what reason? What if your son had actually “spent” the purchased currency… would that change your perspective if you were the merchant?

These are interesting questions…
– where these charges “authorized”?
– given what transpired, who is responsible for the charges?

I think the game publisher could have legitimately felt that since you allowed your son to use your phone, you therefore assumed all risks and charges associated with that usage. I’m glad you got your money back and I think not “spending” the purchases was a huge factor in supporting that result. But don’t you feel you had some sort of responsibility and therefore should be liable for the charges?
[/quote] I’m aware and sensitive to fees that credit card companies charge to merchants for processing a transaction even if something gets refunded–so much so that I try not to use credit cards when I visit mom and pop stores.

So to answer your question, yes, I was resigned to being held accountable for the purchases and paying them if necessary. I figured I would have to at least pay a portion to cover those credit card fees. I think I am legally bound to pay those charges, but anyone can see that it was a mistake (who makes so many charges that the credit card shuts down because it thinks there’s fraudulent activity?) and that any merchant who cares about the consumer would act accordingly. Thankfully, Gameview does.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:56:28 +0000

Would you have granted the refund? And if so, for what reason? What if your son had actually “spent” the purchased currency… would that change your perspective if you were the merchant?

These are interesting questions…
– where these charges “authorized”?
– given what transpired, who is responsible for the charges?

By: Hans Utter

Hans Utter — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:42:36 +0000

I’m entitled to agree that a $400 Tapfish charge is insane, and i’ve never even heard of the game. Unfortunately, I don’t, nor ever will own an Ipod or the like, but I can see Tapfish coming to the 3ds, sir, and that is scary. Great article either way, as an insight into a part-time niche(thats an understatement) that I havn’t had much experience in apart from Facebook games.

Hans