[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:26:15 ago (+1/-0)
The bill also goes as far as allowing parents to cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into when signing up for existing accounts.
When I was 17 the only people on the internet were nerdy White guys. They were the only people willing to spend the time and cash on such a niche hobby that needed a slightly higher IQ to figure out. It was an interesting place then.
Not going to read any article from The Verge because I want to keep my brain cells. But this is an example of an absolutely dumb law. It's completely unenforceable. It's the equivalent of the box on a porn site that says "are you 18 or over? yes/no" There's nothing to prevent kids from just clicking the box that their parent said it was ok and it's not like there are going to be police going around door to door of houses with recently created accounts asking their parents if they approved it.
Kids have been doing this shit for ages. Even in the early 2000s most online games would "require" to be 13 years old to make an account. All that had to be done to get around it was enter a date of birth that would make you over 13 years old.
I believe the intent of the bill is to try to push parents to moderate their children's online activity more often.
There are some other more practical parts of the bill though. For instance, terms of service agreements entered into by children would no longer confer liability onto the parents, and this would be applied retroactively as well.
After hearing about things like the Fifa kid putting $30,000 on their mom's credit card, I think this is a good thing as well. But I'm not sure how it would apply to something like using their parent's credit cards without their knowledge.
[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:29:57 ago (+1/-0)
The bill also goes as far as allowing parents to cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into when signing up for existing accounts
Really the only part I like...unless I'm retarded and missed that parents could already do this?
Technically they can, it's just usually not worth it. It's really to stop companies from playing games in court and to simplify things in general.
Children can enter into contracts but it's typically held the terms of the contract don't actually apply. So a bank could give an 8 year old a loan for $100,000 if they wanted to, but their ability to enforce any terms of the contract would be very little. However, they could argue that despite the child being unable to fully grasp the implications of the contract, that various circumstances should make the contract valid. So like if the kid is a billionaire, and the bank could show they were being as honest as possible with everything, then a court would probably uphold the contract.
The problem is where it is a lot less clear cut.
So say you, at times, have given your kid permission to use your credit card. And at some point, whether he expressly asked you or not, he purchased a trial for something or other, which a month later results in a significant charge. You find out about it after the fact, but the company refuses to refund you because you authorized, even in a very indirect way, the purchase. Your argument would of course be that had you been aware of the terms of the contract, you wouldn't have authorized the purchase.
Now, if your wife did it instead of your kid, you're pretty much SOL. But because it was your kid, you would argue the child wasn't capable of understanding the contract, or even realizing that this was something he should speak to you about.
But the company might still make you take them to court to get your money back. And they can make that an extremely complicated and long process. As an example, the contract is going to have very specific stipulations about how disputes have to be mediated, typically which have to be done in escalating stages (negotiate with their lawyers, then attend a mediation, then dispute the mediation, and so on and so forth). So you would have to go through the process of having a court determine if the case can even be tried by the court, which will probably find that, until you can prove otherwise, the contract is valid, but you can't prove the contract is invalid until you go to court, but you can't go to court until you fulfill the obligations listed in the contract that say when you can go to court.
So instead of all that, the bill is essentially shifting the burden of the case onto the company instead. They have to try to prove that you were aware of the contract and purchase, as opposed to you having to prove that you weren't.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 2 points 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:08:57 ago (+2/-0)
That doesn't mean BANNED FROM THE INTERNET. Besides, the Governor hasn't signed it into law yet.
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:26:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 02:05:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:28:33 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 0 points 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 19:53:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Trollasaurus
[ - ] Trollasaurus 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 02:03:19 ago (+1/-0)
There's nothing to prevent kids from just clicking the box that their parent said it was ok and it's not like there are going to be police going around door to door of houses with recently created accounts asking their parents if they approved it.
Kids have been doing this shit for ages. Even in the early 2000s most online games would "require" to be 13 years old to make an account. All that had to be done to get around it was enter a date of birth that would make you over 13 years old.
[ + ] Jinglebanger
[ - ] Jinglebanger 2 points 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 04:39:21 ago (+2/-0)
There are some other more practical parts of the bill though. For instance, terms of service agreements entered into by children would no longer confer liability onto the parents, and this would be applied retroactively as well.
[ + ] Trollasaurus
[ - ] Trollasaurus 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 11:51:57 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 07:29:57 ago (+1/-0)
Really the only part I like...unless I'm retarded and missed that parents could already do this?
[ + ] Jinglebanger
[ - ] Jinglebanger 1 point 11 monthsJun 11, 2023 18:51:18 ago (+1/-0)
Children can enter into contracts but it's typically held the terms of the contract don't actually apply. So a bank could give an 8 year old a loan for $100,000 if they wanted to, but their ability to enforce any terms of the contract would be very little. However, they could argue that despite the child being unable to fully grasp the implications of the contract, that various circumstances should make the contract valid. So like if the kid is a billionaire, and the bank could show they were being as honest as possible with everything, then a court would probably uphold the contract.
The problem is where it is a lot less clear cut.
So say you, at times, have given your kid permission to use your credit card. And at some point, whether he expressly asked you or not, he purchased a trial for something or other, which a month later results in a significant charge. You find out about it after the fact, but the company refuses to refund you because you authorized, even in a very indirect way, the purchase. Your argument would of course be that had you been aware of the terms of the contract, you wouldn't have authorized the purchase.
Now, if your wife did it instead of your kid, you're pretty much SOL. But because it was your kid, you would argue the child wasn't capable of understanding the contract, or even realizing that this was something he should speak to you about.
But the company might still make you take them to court to get your money back. And they can make that an extremely complicated and long process. As an example, the contract is going to have very specific stipulations about how disputes have to be mediated, typically which have to be done in escalating stages (negotiate with their lawyers, then attend a mediation, then dispute the mediation, and so on and so forth). So you would have to go through the process of having a court determine if the case can even be tried by the court, which will probably find that, until you can prove otherwise, the contract is valid, but you can't prove the contract is invalid until you go to court, but you can't go to court until you fulfill the obligations listed in the contract that say when you can go to court.
So instead of all that, the bill is essentially shifting the burden of the case onto the company instead. They have to try to prove that you were aware of the contract and purchase, as opposed to you having to prove that you weren't.