Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

revealnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 193 posts

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#31

Post by jakelazaroff »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

I don't think Facebook is accidentally misusing the term. They want to redirect sympathy from the cardholders to themselves by framing the situation as if it were just a case of "buyer's remorse", when really they've intentionally built the system to incur these mistaken charges.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#32

Post by wl »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

> Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process

It's dangerous to label such things as fraud. Chargebacks are a consumer protection mechanism of last resort as well as a remedy for unauthorized charges. If a merchant doesn't deliver what they promised and doesn't issue the appropriate refund, the merchant is the one engaging in fraud.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#33

Post by lazugod »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

Could the similar name be a coincidence?

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#34

Post by DamnInteresting »

sctb wrote: post #14
loteck wrote: post #8

Why is this submission marked as a dupe?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18937640

Hmm, that's an earlier story from the same site announcing that the documents are expected to be released, whereas this link is about what the released documents actually revealed. They are related links, but not quite the same.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#35

Post by yholio »

leereeves wrote: post #20
mindgam3 wrote: post #15

The issue is Facebook denying refund requests after children were suckered in to make large in-game payments using their parents' stored credit cards. It's not just that this whole scenario is slimy. It's that Facebook was fully aware of it, had a nice in-house term for it ("friendly fraud"), and not only chose not to approve refunds but also chose not to implement the most basic measures to prevent it. [edit: as a c…

> “It doesn’t necessarily look like ‘real’ money to a minor,” This is intentional. In many games, some things cost "gold" earned by playing the game, and others cost "gems" bought with real money. Or maybe "gold" is the one that costs real money. It's designed to be confusing and hide the distinction between in-game points and real money. At some point the game companies should bear some of the responsibility for dec…

This whole idea of storing a payment token that a company can charge at will (as opposed to a fixed top-up with cash) and then for me to be unable to deny those charges, I find it all unacceptable and refuse to allow it ever.

After providing such a payment token there should be no proof and dispute involved, just a single click in a web interface "I refuse to pay for that and I revoke the token". The user of the token should make sure I am happy so he can continue to charge the token.

This is in sharp contrast with user initiated payments for a fixed amount, that should be carefully secured, require strong authentication and should almost never be reversible, unless actual fraud can be proven by the payer.

The problem with cards on the internet and their high abuse and chargeback rates, for which we all pay, is that they conflate these fundamentally different use cases into a single set of static numbers.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#36

Post by elefanten »

benologist wrote: post #28

Steam / Valve did this for quite a few years until they were taken to court in Australia for their unfair practices. A judge said their refund policy was criminal and intended to deny refunds and fined them a couple million dollars for an estimated 20,000 times. Steam drastically changed their refund policy and evaded fallout everywhere else, but it's probably going to be substantial for Facebook. https://www.pcmag.c…

These two cases seem pretty different to me. Steam wasn't in compliance with Australian refund laws and got in trouble for it. But the Steam case had nothing to do with minors (mostly very young children) making inadvertent purchases.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#37

Post by tareqak »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #34
sctb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18937640

Hmm, that's an earlier story from the same site announcing that the documents are expected to be released, whereas this link is about what the released documents actually revealed. They are related links, but not quite the same.

I agree. This post is a follow-up, not a duplicate.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#38

Post by tuckermi »

The article references this URL: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?61603081... However, that is not accessible without an account and possibly payment for the document. Is this content part of the public domain. If so, can/has it been posted elsewhere?

Edit: I should add that I do see some of the documents reproduced and referenced from elsewhere in the article (e.g. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694620-Exhibit-OO-R...), however I didn't see any way to access the full collection.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#39

Post by benologist »

elefanten wrote: post #36
benologist wrote: post #28

Steam / Valve did this for quite a few years until they were taken to court in Australia for their unfair practices. A judge said their refund policy was criminal and intended to deny refunds and fined them a couple million dollars for an estimated 20,000 times. Steam drastically changed their refund policy and evaded fallout everywhere else, but it's probably going to be substantial for Facebook. https://www.pcmag.c…

These two cases seem pretty different to me. Steam wasn't in compliance with Australian refund laws and got in trouble for it. But the Steam case had nothing to do with minors (mostly very young children) making inadvertent purchases.

The similarity is the intent to refuse lawful refunds, and probably the scale. Steam never optimized to refuse more refunds though.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#40

Post by om2 »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

That’s not how I’ve heard the term used. The meaning I’m familiar with is “person closely known to the card holder incurs a charge that isn’t really authorized”, for example you might have access to their computer but aren’t supposed to use their saved credit card info for purchases. For example, companies ask for the ability for websites to do biometric authentication via TouchID/FaceID to combat friendly fraud. That wouldn’t make sense under your definition.
Post reply on HN