StatusCake

Coining it In – The UK’s OFT Investigates In-App Purchases

purchases

It’s been almost two months since the UK’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) launched its investigation and public consultation into in-app purchases in popular Children’s app-based games.  As well as writing to app producers, the OFT reached out to parents and consumer groups for their feedback.

A study by Ofcom, the UK communications regulator whose vast remit straddles broadcasting, telecoms as well as the Internet, showed that more than 28% of all children aged between 5 and 15 own smartphones (up 20% on the previous year), with significantly more being able to access games via their parents’ smartphones.

Catering to this audience are a vast range of apps – often based on popular children’s characters such as the Smurfs, Sponge Bob Square Pants and Playmobil – which are “free” at the point of download, but in order for players to progress more quickly within the game, access new features or levels, require them to make purchases.

At the heart of the OFT’s investigation is concerns over whether the pushing of in-app purchases is commercially aggressive messages that appeal directly to children.  The body is also considering whether the full “costs of play” – how much you could expect to pay to make full use of the game – should be made more transparent prior to download.  There had been, in the lead up to the consultation announcement, cases of parents being hit with bills of more than £2,000 for in-app purchases.

OFT Examples

When launching its consultation the OFT gave numerous examples of how in-app purchases could cost up to £70 a time; an example being in the Smurfs village game where a wagon of SmurfBerries costs £69.99.  But other popular games with these high cost in-app purchases include the age 4+ rated My Little Pony, Snoopy’s Street Fair and SpongBob Moves In – based on the popular Nickelodeon SpongeBob SquarePants TV show  – where virtual in-game currency can be purchased for £69.99.

Although the size of the in-app purchase market is not known, it is believed around 80 of the top 100 grossing apps in Apple and Android’s app stores are free and make their money through the in-app purchase business model.  Microsoft, which in planning to release its own findings on a survey carried out with 2,000 British parents, estimates that the size of the UK market for “monthly spend on unauthorised apps and in-app purchases” to be just shy of £40m.

Although the OFT has made it clear it’s not looking to ban these kind of games – or more specifically the in-app purchase pioneered by social gaming companies such as Zynga with its Farmville game – unless the industries response is measured and co-operative, it is likely that the OFT will move to bring in some form of regulation – whether clearer and more transparent advertising of pricing, or perhaps daily or total caps on the amount of money that a child can spend.

What happens with the developers?

In turn the app-developers are likely to shift some of the focus away from their games and onto parents themselves.  Although not part of the OFT investigation, the developers will argue that there are already mechanisms in place to stop devices from automatically making purchases – and that parents should take some responsibility for ensuring that these protections are turned-on, that the smartphones are not constantly logged into the app-store (meaning in-app purchases can be made with only one click) and that children should be more adequately supervised.

The issue of in-app purchases is not confined to the UK.  In late February this year Apple settled a lawsuit brought by parents whose children had spent large amounts of money on in-app purchases.   The settlement saw a US judge telling apple that it must give a $5 iTune gift-card to anyone who made a purchase of one of the “qualifying apps”, and where the children had spent over $30, to award the parents a full refund. Although the size of the lawsuit is not entirely clear, Apple have been told they need to send out notices to some 23 million users who bought these apps.

The OFT’s findings on the UK in-app purchase study are due out this coming October.

James Barnes, StatusCake.com

Share this

More from StatusCake

A Notification List Is Not a Team

3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years

Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision

3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.

The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most

4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already

When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them

3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,

When AI Speeds Up Change, Knowing First Becomes the Constraint

5 min read In a recent post, I argued that AI doesn’t fix weak engineering processes; rather it amplifies them. Strong review practices, clear ownership, and solid fundamentals still matter just as much when code is AI-assisted as when it’s not. That post sparked a follow-up question in the comments that’s worth sitting with: With AI speeding things

Make Your Engineering Processes Resilient. Not Your Opinions About AI

4 min read Why strong reviews, accountability, and monitoring matter more in an AI-assisted world Artificial intelligence has become the latest fault line in software development.  For some teams, it’s an obvious productivity multiplier.  For others, it’s viewed with suspicion.  A source of low-quality code, unreviewable pull requests, and latent production risk. One concern we hear frequently goes

Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?

Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021

*By providing your email address, you agree to our privacy policy and to receive marketing communications from StatusCake.