Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 15, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comApple Inc. has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit over applications (apps) purchased through its online marketplace. Five parents sued the company after their children inadvertently made purchases in apps that purported to be free.
According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, “Apple failed to adequately disclose that third-party Game Apps, largely available for free and rated as containing content suitable for children, contained the ability to make In-App Purchases.”
Apple requires users to authenticate their accounts by entering a password prior to purchasing and/or downloading an app or buying game currency. However, up until early 2011, once the password was entered once, Apple permitted users to buy game currency for up to fifteen minutes without re-entering the password. As a result, the plaintiffs’ children racked up bills ranging from $99.99 to $338.72 at a time.
The case posed an interesting contract issue. As detailed in court documents, the plaintiffs maintained that each in-app purchase constituted a separate and voidable contract between Apple and their minor children, which could be subsequently disaffirmed by a parent or guardian on behalf of the minors. Under their theory, “a contract between Apple and minor existed each time that (1) Apple offered to sell game currency to a minor playing an app, (2) the minor accepted Apple’s offer, and (3) the transaction was supported by consideration, or payment made by the Plaintiffs.”
Meanwhile, Apple argued that the relevant contractual relationship governing the in-app purchases existed solely between Apple and plaintiffs. Citing the original Terms & Conditions signed by the plaintiffs, it contended that the purchases were not voidable. Moreover, Apple argued that the Terms & Condition specifically hold the account holder liable for any unauthorized purchases.
Since the case was settled, we will never know how the court would have ruled on these issues. Under the terms of the settlement, Apple will provide a $5 iTunes store credit to impacted customers, which could reach 23 million. In addition, class members claiming $30 or more from Apple may elect to receive a cash refund. Overall, the settlement is expected to cost Apple $100 million.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!