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

[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.