December 6, 2007 -
Games Radar has a bit of a legal problem this morning.As reported by Kotaku, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R, left) has sued the popular, California-based website in Federal District Court. Abbott alleges that Games Radar is violating the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Also targeted: The Doll Palace. A press release on Abbott's website says:
...Greg Abbott today took legal action against two Web sites that cater to children but fail to adequately protect their privacy and safety. Texas is the first state to file an enforcement action under [COPPA]...
[the sites] unlawfully collect personal information... from children. Investigators also discovered that the sites’ parental consent features were easily manipulated and circumvented. The lack of reasonable controls readily allow children to access the sites’ various features, including interactive chat rooms and forums, without their parents’ knowledge.
Abbott added:
These defendants are charged with operating child-oriented Web sites that violate the law by failing to protect young users... [my office] will continue aggressively enforcing laws to protect young Internet users...
Watch the video of Abbott's news conference here. Abbott's complaint against Games Radar is here.
GP: The outcome of this legal action will probably cause other game content sites to review their situation vis-a-vis COPPA. Among Abbott's charges against Games Radar is an allegation that the site caters to younger readers via reviews and discussion forums on kid-oriented titles like Pokemon, but also allows them to access reviews and features on more mature-themed games.
UPDATE: Future US, which owns Games Radar, has responded to the Texas suit.
Comments
This is so ridiculous! Stop trying to raise our children, and worry about things that actually matter in this country.
Just goes to show, though, that there are a large number of people for whom "gamer" equates primarily to "child."
I whole heartenly agree.
That may be a VERY important point. The FTC accepts credit cards as age verification tools, as pointed out many times. In fact, it's one of the most reliable ways to prove age online.
However, while he circumvented the "protect the children" with an alternate phrase, he may actually be encouraging identity theft. Either pushing sites to be pay-only sites, therefore requiring credit cards, or forcing sites to demand credit card information even for free sites, he may be opening up the door to unscrupulous individuals. Sound hard to believe? Imagine that it becomes a NORMAL practice to sign up for a free site by entering your credit card information. How, then, do you tell which sites are trustworthy and which aren't?
Right now, people are wary of giving out that information. Some take the risk, but others, knowing that most sites don't require it, have other resources to turn to for information.
But if MOST, if not ALL, sites required to use such information as credit cards as verification, then there would be fewer options. Either risk your personal information or not be given access to information you may need/want.
It is possible, then , those sites that want to be free but don't want to endanger the personal information of customers may not create sites that would be of use to people. In a sense, that would be a violation of their Freedom of Speech. Tough case to prove, but when you hear "To protect the children, you must risk endangering the identity of adults or not be heard".
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Yet again, he is tying it to the predator thing by including that children have access to forums and chat rooms.
I do wonder what kind of validation would appease this guy.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Or just reviewing the browser log.
About that... its pretty easy for a kid with a lil' knowhow to clear the history on the computer. Not that id know anything about doing that... hehe... ehem.
Anywho, he had a good point initially but turned it down a sour path. Yes, it is bad to have a sight that is kid oriented to have easy access to chat rooms and the like, but then again ive watched my brothers and cousins at ages 9-15 talking on AOL IM, which is essentially a chat room; so all in all, this is a pretty complicated situation that mister Abbott needs to be more clear and specific on. Weird thing is, hes worried about reviews for an M rated game when its just as easy to see reviews for NC17 movies or worse yet, pure porn. Besides, what can a REVIEW do to a kid? not like its interactive demos.
There is no good point. When you let a child on the internet, the odds of them finding porn increases exponentially when you let them wander. Simple google searches of simple words can lead to horrible things.
The thing about the internet is that ANYONE can get on if they want to. Trying to block a not-really childrens website is useless, because the information is still out there in other places.
so, if they win this, they can go on to do the same forr every games review site, that has the ability for people to sign up.
I'm not sure if I get the idea behind this. Does this aim to create an environment where players under the age of 17 simply do not know that M-rated games are published?
So it’s now bad for a minor to read a REVIEW of a game rated M?
Unfortunately, yes. COPPA not only sets down restrictions on what you can do with information collected, but also demands strict limits on advertising to children.
I find the language about the "easily manipulated" parental controls disturbing as well since it is a nebulous comment. Borrowing your parents credit card information is argueable as easy as bypassing parental controls.
The only part of this that I could potentially see as a positive is the language about "unlawful collection of personal information". The positive is that this sort of attitude could help enforce a sites Privacy Policy, etc.
Seriously, the people who run the government sometimes make me think that I should invest in a bomb shelter, you know, just in case. I'm starting to think twice about this whole 'democracy' thing =/
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/us_terms.jsp
Now, this could have been added after the lawsuit was served. This should be stronger in language. It should say:
"By registering with Game Radar, you agree that you are age 13 and up as required by US COPPA Law. If a use is found to be under the age of 13, their account shall be suspended and all personal information collected shall be erased."
A lot of sites have the "How old are you?" type of thing before entering, while it is easy to lie and claim you were born in 1920 or whatever, would simply adding that to "M" rated sections get this guy to shut his pie hole?
To the blue islands in the crazy sea of red that is Texas... I feel your pain.
First off sorry for a double post, second, no that bit is on all boards I ever sign up for. Pretty sure it is included in the source code for them. All seem to ask that you are at least 13, or at least have parent permission. Or just lie.
By complaining about the website allowing children to "access reviews and features on more mature-themed games", the Attorney General is esentially arguing against his own case.
COPPA is a stupid law anyway.
?Three cheers for your frivolous law suits!?
?Three cheers for three years that you wasted at law school!?
*I sorry if I offended anyone that has a Texas education and a brain.
Ignoring that for the moment, the guy MIGHT actually have a point depending on just exactly how the signups for gamesrador worked. I tried to test it now, but they've disabled signups for the moment.
Basically, from what I understand, COPPA makes it illegal for a site to knowingly collect personal information from someone under 13, at least without parental consent. Given that just about any site that allows you to register for a forum asks for things like your name, this can present an issue.
Regarding how some sites get around it, at Gamespot, where I am a mod, we just don't allow anyone under 13 to register. We permanently ban anyone who admits to being under 13 after registering, so the only way they can use our forums is to both lie about their age and hide the fact afterwards. Hence, no knowing collection of personnal info on Gamespot's part. And it's hard for a predator to try and use the boards to contact those under 13 because the moment anyone reveals that they are that young, we ban them. (So if by chance you or someone you know was banned at Gamespot for being underage and you were unhappy about it, now you know why we have to do so.)
For Gamepolitics' forums, I started to register just now and lied about my age and said I was under 13. It then brought me to some page that mentioned having to fax or mail a parental consent form before the registration could be completed. I stopped there, of course.
From the way thedollpalace was described, (that's the other place being sued, and it's a place that generally is child-orientated) it sounded like it at least wasn't following COPPA regulations very well. Not so sure about gamesrador, though, cause the guy didn't mention any specific examples for it.
Supposedly, gamesrador has you choose your birthdate from a dropdown menu when registering, but doesn't let you choose any date after 1994. Also, even if you choose a date in 1994 that would put you slightly under the age of 13, you can still register without having to go through even a token parental consent system.
Basically, the entire age system is pointless, and it asking you for your birthday does nothing.
If this is all true (can't test for myself, cause the registration system is now disabled, as I mentioned before), then I have to agree with Abbott that gamesrador isn't really complying with COPPA. I just wish he didn't include some misconceptions and stuff in his releases.
The problem here is people aren't fully reading the AG's complaints, and are just hearing him call gamesrador "child-orientated" and not seeing anything else.
Whether gamesrador is child-orientated or not is not really an issue, the fact is COPPA doesn't allow sites to knowingly collect information on those under the age of 13 without a verification of parental consent. And gamesrador apparently does, with a registration process that asks you for your age but does nothing even if you say you are under 13 (which is hard to do because of the registration only letting you pick 1994 as a birthdate.)
Hence, gamesrador hardly does even a token effort to comply with COPPA.
Kids are able to get into the "adults only" chat rooms when they are younger just by making a new yahoo name with age nirthday set to make them older then 18.
In the case of gamersrador, in some cases, they don't. That's why I'm not defending them that much. Though the site says it's not for those under 13, those between 12 and 13 that fall into a particular range can join with no problem, it seems.
COPPA removes the ability to do stuff I used to do as a kid, i.e. fantasy sports, message boards on kid's shows, etc.
COPPA is just bad law. The original rationale wasn't even to rotect from child predators, but rather to protect kids from marketers who would send targeted ads to them. What's the harm in them getting emails telling them to buy more Spongebob crap? Or maybe politicians were concerned that they would get ads for M-rated games?
A better approach would be to overturn COPPA and instead create a law that would create limits on who the information can be passed on to. I won't worry much about pedophiles anyway, as I will insist my kids take some sort of martial art so they can defend themselves if they are in that kind of situation.
Umm...almost any site can easily be manipulated...the only site i think that kind of comes close is Youtubes age verification for "semi-NSFW" videos.
blocking content to them would probably break their rights, the US is funny like that.
then again it would just force unnecessary things to view normal "mature" content.
A age gate is stupid and cumbersome a more simple are you 14+ would be better.
Of coarse they could tie in the age gate to statistical data of some kind and sell it 0_o...
I never put in my age any more just random numbers.