[The Editors' Verdict] Game Usage and Adolescent Protection

Issues related to the protection of adolescents in gaming have served as a social responsibility concern of the gaming industry and a justification for regulating the industry since its inception. Today, we will address the issue of game payments made by adolescents in the online environment, which raises considerable concerns.

#First case: If an adolescent plays a game under their own name and makes an in-game purchase without parental consent, is that payment valid? Currently, such a payment can be canceled retroactively. In other words, a minor must obtain the consent of their legal guardian to perform legal acts, and legal acts performed without such consent can be canceled (Civil Act Article 5). However, a minor may freely dispose of property that the legal guardian has permitted them to manage within a defined scope (Civil Act Article 6). Suppose an adolescent believes they made a payment using property their parents allowed them to manage, but the parents later cancel the payment claiming otherwise. In that case, should the game operator issue a refund? How can the game operator know whether the adolescent’s payment was made with parental consent or using property permitted by the parents? These are practically difficult issues. Generally, game operators tend to resolve such problems by issuing refunds regardless of legitimacy. This practice is undesirable not only from a business perspective but also institutionally. Therefore, a system that can resolve disputes rationally and ensure predictability must be established.

#Second case: If an adolescent uses a mobile phone registered under their parent’s name to play games and makes payments with a credit card under the parent’s name, is that payment valid? In fact, there is almost no way for the game operator to know that the adolescent made the payment. This is the primary cause of disputes related to this case. Even if it is acknowledged that the adolescent made the payment, legally, it can be understood that the parent granted the adolescent the authority to act as their agent for legal acts. What if the parent was unaware of the adolescent’s payment? How can the game operator know whether the adolescent’s payment was made with delegated authority from the parent? Similar issues arise here as in the first case, and a reasonable system to resolve these problems is necessary.

#Third case: In the financial and telecommunications sectors, children under 14 can obtain check cards with transportation card functions under their own name and activate mobile phones registered in their own name. However, in the gaming sector, one must generally be at least 14 years old to use character games. Why is this? This situation shows that regulations for protecting adolescents are actually very strict, severely limiting what adolescents can do. In finance and telecommunications, contracts are still often made offline, making it easier to obtain parental consent. However, online, obtaining consent from the legal guardian is required to collect, use, or provide personal information of children under 14 by law. Because systems to secure parental consent online are weak, operators tend to refuse service to users under 14 to prevent disputes in advance. This situation ironically deprives adolescents of the opportunity to properly learn how to make legal purchases of items or services in games.

In a reality where contactless online activities are increasingly strengthened due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and COVID-19, it is necessary to guarantee adolescents the rights to act as independent subjects while establishing a predictable and reasonable system that prevents unnecessary harm to game operators.

Seonggi Hwang, Professor, Hanyang University School of Law