Insidious (with an Edit)

[pecunium]

One of the painful things about things like Google Services, and things like Steam, Facebook, etc. is the pig-in-a-poke aspect of them. They set the rules, and you don't get to negotiate with them. One has two choices, play the game the way they want to play, or pick up your marbles and go home.

There is also a "Calvin-Ball" aspect to things, as they get to change the rule anytime they feel like it and the options for you remain the same. In fact, they get to change the rules and the only hope you have to pick up your marbles and go home depends on them making it known to you that the rules are changed.

I have a PayPal account. It lets me sell photos to people who are great distances away, and in other countries. This is greatly convenient. It's also onerous. I've read/heard horror stories of people whom PayPal has decided are violating the ToS (mostly related to what PayPal thinks is erotic, or "adult" [which bit of jargon pisses me off. I am an adult. I take pictures to please me, and I sell them to people because they are pleased by them. It is, by it's nature, adult. What they mean is sexual, and how they define is strange. Functionally it means I dare not sell, nor even display, nudes in a context which might get back to my PayPal account, lest they decide I might damage their image in Poughkeepsie).

I also, when I got it, chose the, "Alert me when there are policy changes," option.

Today I got this:

* Amendment to the PayPal Student Account Agreement

1. The following language is added to section 3.c (Parent Control):

x.: “Marketing Promotions. If the Parent Account has opted-in to receiving marketing notifications in its Account Profile, then we may send such notifications to the Child as well.”

2. The following language is added to section 3.d (Child Control):

x.: “Marketing Promotions. The Student may participate in marketing promotions or campaigns offered from time to time.”



I am not sure how I feel about that. These are accounts parents set up for their minor children. People we deny the legal right to make, or enter, contracts. I am ambivalent about the sending of marketing promotions to them.

It's the next clause which pisses me off.

3. The last paragraph of section 4 (Liability) will read:

“Any online agreements that are accepted by the Child, including terms and conditions of any promotion the Child participates in, are accepted by the Parent as if the Parent had taken the action. The Parent is responsible for educating the Child on internet safety.”


What The Fuck?

It be that hard to build the student acccount so that any such promotion (because, the implication here is this is PayPal promotional activity; i.e. in house) can't be accepted. But no, they aren't doing that. They are saying (in a little piece of ex post facto changes to present accounts), that one is granting one's child(ren) a limited power of attorney to enter into contracts with PayPal, for, "any online agreements".

I don't know if the promotions PayPal is offering, from time to time might not be for/with third parties. That's a huge door to liability, and has a great potential for abuse.

Many moons ago, when I had a land-line, I was, "crammed". A company (which I later saw on 60 Minutes) was making a fortune by adding a "service" to people's phone. For 60 bucks a month they were providing me with, "voice mail". I don't know (because the federal case made of it said they were doing it by outright fraud, as well as dubplicitous practice) if I was somehow tricked into letting them do this. I do know that I got a bill, in Jan, which I expected; from a lot of long-distance calling, to be huge, and I paid it.

In Feb, the bill seemed too large, and I refused to pay it, telling AT&T that I'd not ordered it.

It kept showing up, and I kept refusing to pay it. Then came the notice my phone was going to be cut off, unless I paid this charge. I called AT&T and repeated (again) the problems. I hadn't ordered this, didn't want it, the number on the bill didn't answer, etc.

And was told I had to pay it. AT&T wasn't charging me, they were doing me the favor of passing this charege along (honest, that's what they said, "We are allowing them to attach their charges to this bill as a service to you). How had they gone about arranging to pass such "services" along? By sending a little notice in a bill.

(I did get the charge voided. She said it was because I'd previously complained, but I think it wa a combination of not losing my temper, and telling them I was not going to pay it, even if it meant losing phone service [this was going on twenty years ago, when not having a land-line was a pretty serious step to take]. That was probably a larger loss of revenue to AT&T than the kick back this crooked company was passing along).

So "it's the responsibilty of the parent to educate the Child about internet safety," is pretty flip (and callous) language (and a trifle rich from a nanny-net company which acts as if a simple nude is an offense to all that's good and right in the world).

I wonder how it will hold up in court.

(edit: Somehow my lead seems to imply that PayPal is owned by Google, this is not the case)

Comments

The sneaky

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

bullshit that these companies do is insane. I though Google was supposed to be the good guys.

Re: The sneaky

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I seem to have been confusing, PayPal is not a Google product.

Re: The sneaky

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

Ah yeah, it is ebay that owns pay pal. No other alternative to what you want to do?

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

Children under 13 may not sign a contract, and courts will uphold that because it keeps little kids from getting married. So, should some child under 13 accept some sort of change to his or her parent's contract, and should the parent sue, the parent will win. But if a parent with a child over 13 sues, the ball's in the air.

If I were a judge, I'd take note of how buried that clause is in deciding how I would decide the case. If those words are in 26 point bold font at the very beginning of a change in agreement, I'd probably decide for PayPal. But if it's reasonably buried, I would decide for the parent. That appears to be at least a tiny bit the way judges are deciding these things, these days.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It's not that. Age of Consent is variable from state to state (and they differ for sex/marriage).

A 13 year old, even one with access to the money to pay for it, can't finance a car, or agree to provide a recurrent service. They aren't allowed to enter into contracts.

For a 16 year old to contract to work, even part time, requires an active agreement on the part of the parent, and the state continues to limit the nature of those contracts (with some jobs prohibited, and controls on the hours/locations worked).

I am sure there are federal rules on this sort of thing (because of the interstate commerce aspects of the arrngements), but the entire idea is a liability waiting to happen, for PayPal, either legal, or PR.

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

I know that, uniformly, children under 13 can't marry and can't sign contracts. I know also that there are different rules for children in show business - I think they can sign work-related contracts but their parents have to, as well. Past 13, the age of marital consent changes from state to state.

When I was 16 and got a job my mom didn't have to sign anything - but my school had to. Has it changed since then?

I'm also sure this is a huge problem that's going to blow up in PG&E's face. And yeah, there are bound to be federal rules covering this due to interstate commerce. What they are, I don't know. I don't spend nearly as much time studying the legal aspects of commerce as I do studying the legal aspects of human rights. :)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Varies from state to state (re working).

Kids in show business are restricted in the effects of their contracts. In theory they have no control over the money they earn, and neither do the parents.

But for this... kitty bar the door.

[kodi]

Wait, what? So Johnny 5-year-old signs a contract with Eustace R. Hollywood, and you're saying that Eustace is the one with the power to void the contract? Can you please point me to something showing me how that happens? I've never seen anything that lets the non-minor party to a contract involving a minor void the contract.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Depends on what you mean by void. If a show gets cancelled, an option on a sequel not picked up, Johnny 5-year old is just as unemployed as Big Name Adult star.

What restrictions there are have to do with how the monies paid for work performed (or retainers for work anticipated) are managed. The theory is they go into a trust, and much of it is sequestered until Johnny is an adult.

[kodi]

That's not at all what I mean by void. My understanding is that, generally speaking, if a minor enters an otherwise legal contract for a non-necessity, because the minor does not have capacity to consent, the minor cannot be bound by the contract. The other parties to the contract, however, can be bound - so long as the minor performs (does not void the contract), the other parties are not released from the contract. It varies state to state, but generally that's how I understand things. Minors are disadvantaged by this rule because sane people will not enter into contracts with them, but once the contract is formed, I don't know how it comes to be to the minor's disadvantage.

The restrictions you're talking about sound like they are efforts made by the industry to protect itself from the ill effects of forming a contract with a minor, and not an actual restriction on the ability of a minor to form an employment contract, but I may be misunderstanding completey.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

They are neither of the things you mention

The restrictions are for the protection of the minor. In the early days of film there were a number of child actors who "made fortunes" who discovered the agents, employers; and sometimes parents, had spent it all, and they were penniless.

Since they also had no trade but acting (and usually they weren't able to transition from child star to adult player) there were screwed.

But, the minor can enter a contraact which would be (in any other industry) pretty much a non-starter. Schooling has to be provided, parents have to have access to the set, work hours are longer than they would be for any other job (and really young children are allowed to work). I can't think of any other industry which would be allowed to hire a four year old, the way sit-coms are allowed to.

[kodi]

Ah, here we go. You're talking about CA Family Code 6750 et seq. So yeah, it's state law, not something done by the industry, but at the same time "A contract, otherwise valid, of a type described in
Section 6750, entered into during minority, cannot be disaffirmed on
that ground either during the minority of the person entering into
the contract, or at any time thereafter..." So the same code solves both problems - it prevents minors from rescinding those contracts, and it prevents anyone from entering into such a contract unless they put 15% of the funds in trust for the benefit of the minor. I'm not seeing how that 15% expands to include the entire amount of the contract, though.

But yeah, I see now what you're talking about.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I was unaware it was so little. The general impression given in the various press, is that it's more the reverse of that proportion, but I was also under the impression it was a federal statute.

I wonder if there is some parallel federal statute addressing the issue.

[cjmr.livejournal.com]

*note to self* Do not open a student Pay Pal account for eldest son, even though it was starting to seem like a good idea.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I think I am going to the original plan, a greendot card for the eldest. IT's how my husband gets $ to me when he is working out of town. Should work for her, too. This saved me the bother, I am not pleased with what I read above.

[martyn44.livejournal.com]

I think we all know how it OUGHT to end up in court. But Google is a self aware coporation and we are but meat puppets. So we all know how it WOULD end up in court.

Not that corporations have been given such rights over here (yet) and I think it would be bounced over here.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I seem to have been confusing, Google does not own PayPal.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

Pay"Pal" is owned by eBay, last I knew. eBay is my archetype of someone getting lucky by getting into exactly the right online business at exactly the right time, and then pissing it away by being stupid jerks.

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

What they're saying is "what you think is a parent-supervised account is no such thing, because you're giving us the right to bypass the protections we said you could set."

In any other context, parents have to consent before a child is bound by a contract. They have to take a positive action, and sign their name. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (both versions), that's non-negotiable.

Paypal is attempting to weasel around that. Frankly I hope it ends up in Federal court, because I expect it would be slapped into next week.

If my son wants to purchase something online, he has to go through his father or me. Period. It will remain that way until he is old enough to have his own credit card. Under federal law, that's 18. By then hopefully I'll have taught him how to handle his purchases responsibly, and until then, we as parents are in charge, putting no faith in anyone else's goodwill toward our child.

[kodi]

Sorry to bother you, but what section of the UCC is that? I'm searching for the word "parent" and I'm not finding it.

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

I don't recall what section (it's been awhile since I studied for the bar exam), but I wouldn't expect the word "parent" to appear. What does show up is that a minor cannot consent to a contract for goods or services. Purchasing by mail-order - and by extension the internet - is considered an interstate contract.

The "consent of parent or guardian" language is the result of the way courts interpreted those provisions.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the first part. No one is giving them that permission. They are extorting it.

Option one: allow them to do this.

Option two: cancel your "student" paypal account.

There is no "give" in that. You don't get the option to negotiate the terms. They dictate your choices, you accept, or quit. Since there are enough people unaffected by this, the amount of hurt they will take from the people that quit is insufficient to make them change the policy.

The problem with this sort of relationship is the dichotomous power. PayPal functions as an idividual, but the only way for an individual with whom it does business to get consideration is to have a huge number of like-minded sorts willing to be simultaneously vocal.

[kestrels-nest.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course. I was using "give" ironically, a thing conveyed by vocal tone and so unclear in print.

New definition of "old enough to have one's own credit card"

[harimad.livejournal.com]

The new consumer protection act, the Credit CARD act, goes into effect today. One provision is that one must now be 21 to open a credit card account by oneself. Younger than that requires either a co-signer or proof of independent income. (I have no info as of yet as to how much income is required.)