Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl... And there is more to this issue than people realise. Apple has had major lawsuits over the years [1] due to kids racking up large credit card bills via in-app purchases. And similar concerns exist for gambling apps. So this explains why they need to show such a large warning because they don't want to be held responsible for actions of a third party. Whi…
This sounds even worse for Apple. If it’s too easy to make an in-app purchase, why don’t they make it harder to complete one by adding password requirement for payments through their App Store? Of course they won’t do that because it hurts /their/ bottom line. Following this logic, letting people complete payments outside of Apples control should absolve Apple of the legal liabilities between payments made between th…
They do. Passwords are required for every purchase, they just give the user the option to either disable this or to use biometrics by default instead, which is considered a password analogue in the security chain of Apple.
But if you don’t have biometrics setup then you’re always asked for a password and if you do have it setup then after the first time asking for a password it’ll ask if you want to use biometrics instead going forward.
Even on a new device, if you’ve transferred your settings eland other stuff, it’ll still ask for your password the first time before honoring your transferred setting to use biometrics instead.
> Following this logic, letting people complete payments outside of Apples control should absolve Apple of the legal liabilities between payments made between the user and a third party.
It should absolve them of liabilities, but that doesn’t stop people from trying to sue Apple and being able to point to a warning will increase the changes of getting a summary dismissal.
> If this is not the case, can you sue Apple for unauthorized payments made over Safari?
You can sue Apple for any reason. I can sue you too tomorrow for whatever reason I think warrants a suit.
In fact, it is standing practice for trial lawyers (and they’re welcome to pitch in) to sue any party that remotely can be tied to a cause of action as a co-defendant, especially if they have deeper pockets than the party that would be the most logical primary defendant.
This increases the chances of a pay out and there’s a marginal effort and cost to lump them into the case while you’re at it.
So in an example related to the matter at hand it’s very likely that someone would sue the third party developer and Apple, regardless of their precautions. Because the world’s most valuable and richest company (or second most valuable company, courtesy of MS) is great to have on the other side to take a shot at, if only because they might simply settle because the cost/benefit analysis on their side to litigate it might favor a quick settlement.