beware of interactive games and children

[mxc]

I've just discovered that my 5 year old has managed to go interactive with a certain game on cartoon network which lets you have a freebie game and then pops up a message which then charges 60p per go to connect to the proper game.

My only gripe is the way the screen is set up in that it goes straight to yes (to connect at 60p) as opposed to going to no and requiring some understanding of the words on the screen. Although my boy is bright, he's not at the stage of reading "please obtain the bill payers/guardians consent before proceeding" and simply pushes the select button to carry on (and connect!).

Consequently, i'm going to end up with a bill for 10-20 games for 1 day.

I explained this to Sky in a call earlier and advised that consent was not sought or given and was told by the lovely CS that I had to prove that I personally did not play these games and the charges would stand.

Now amended the parental controls to ensure no repeat and a massive letter of complaint is going in to Sky as the way the system is set up is very bad bearing in mind that most, if not all of the players, will be children at home for the school holidays.

[indefatigable]

I don't see how this has anything to do with Sky.

It will be Cartoon network how created the game, and designed it that way. Sky are only the hosts of the game, not the developers.

Its like complaining to a website host that a site they host has porn on it. Its not the hosts fault.

but to be honest, a warning was put up and it was ignored. It does not matter that it was a 5 year old that ignored it. The warning was there.

If you were caught doing 45 in a 30, you wouldn't get away with telling the police that you were not aware of the speed limit. There are signs telling you the speed limit, and if you ignore them, then thats your problem. You still have to pay the fine, as you were warned.

[Smithy99]

There is a difference, a five year old is not considered an adult or minor and can therefore not be held legally responsible for their actions.

I too would consider the correct default option should be set to no and as a five year old cannot legally enter into a contract, it should not be charged.

I would imagine your letter will get the desired responce.

[indefatigable]

fair enough, but its still not skys fault. they are only the hosts, not the developer.

[Smithy99]

Originally Posted by indefatigable

fair enough, but its still not skys fault. they are only the hosts, not the developer.

Who get's the money?

[Saturday]

Sky can't have it both ways - they host the application, process (or enable) any transactions and most likely get revenue share.

They have a PIN protection system which should be in place for anything that a child may reasonably be expected to access. This game would appear to be something specifically aimed at children.

It's not reasonable to hold Sky 100% liable, but liable to an extent.

Just my opinion of course.

[GSMGuy]

This is the very reason that we have both of our boxes set to "Require PIN before going online"

Problem solved...

Mike

[Alan b]

Originally Posted by Saturday

It's not reasonable to hold Sky 100% liable, but liable to an extent.

I would agree with that. It is up to each householder to put the pin protection in place if there are young children around. And Sky perhaps should set this up so it does automatically go to "no".