Concern:
My 4-year-old son accidentally purchased an app from Google Playstore costing ₱1,700, and Google has denied my refund request.

∇ Legal Contemplator
Starting small. Let’s break this down. A 4-year-old purchased an app. This raises immediate questions. Can a child legally form a binding contract in the Philippines? Almost certainly not. A contract requires mutual consent, legal capacity, and a meeting of the minds. A 4-year-old lacks capacity. So the purchase should theoretically be void or voidable. But how does this apply to digital purchases? Let’s keep going.

First Step: The Nature of the Purchase

Digital transactions are contractual in nature. When you buy something on Google Play, you enter into a contract with Google. But in this case, a minor initiated the transaction. Who is responsible here? Google may argue that the account holder (the parent) is ultimately responsible. This leads to another question: Does having a Google account implicitly mean consenting to all purchases made through it?

Questioning Assumptions

Parental Consent
Could Google reasonably expect that every purchase through a registered account is authorized by an adult? Not entirely. Google offers parental controls and password protections for precisely this reason. If such safeguards were not in place, can responsibility fall entirely on the parent? Or does Google bear some accountability for not ensuring proper authorization?
Technical Safeguards
Was the account secured by passwords, biometrics, or other mechanisms? If not, does that imply negligence on the part of the parent? Or is Google at fault for not mandating stronger protections?
Refund Policy
Google’s standard refund policy typically denies refunds for "accidental purchases" unless requested within 48 hours. Why the 48-hour window? Is it fair to assume that all unauthorized purchases would be detected so quickly? Many parents may not notice until they see their billing statement. Should Google have a more lenient policy for such cases?

Expanding the Perspective

Let’s step back. Beyond Google’s terms, what does Philippine law say about unauthorized purchases? The Electronic Commerce Act (RA 8792) governs digital transactions in the Philippines. Does it address issues of accidental purchases by minors? Let’s keep this in mind and return to it later.

Exploring Google’s Liability

What obligations does Google have to prevent unauthorized purchases?

Parental Controls: Google provides tools to prevent unauthorized purchases, but their effectiveness depends on user implementation. If parental controls were not activated, does that absolve Google of liability? Not necessarily. Could it be argued that Google has a duty to make these protections default settings, especially for accounts likely to be accessed by minors?
Refund Denial: Is Google’s refund policy compliant with Philippine law? Consumer rights in the Philippines are protected under the Consumer Act (RA 7394). Does denying refunds in such cases constitute an unfair or deceptive practice? Let’s keep digging.

Parent’s Responsibility

Now let’s consider the parent’s role. If the account lacked safeguards, does that imply negligence? Even so, can a parent be held responsible for a contract entered into by a minor? This feels murky. Parents may have a duty to secure devices, but Google’s design choices may also contribute to the issue. This interplay between user responsibility and platform accountability is complex.

Backtracking and Revising

Wait. Let’s return to the foundational question: Is the purchase legally valid? Under Philippine law, contracts entered into by minors are generally voidable. But does this apply to digital purchases? Google might argue that their terms of service override this principle because users agree to abide by them when creating an account. Still, terms cannot supersede national law. This seems worth exploring further.

Dead Ends and Revisiting Ideas

Here’s a potential dead end: Arguing that Google is entirely at fault. They provide tools to prevent unauthorized purchases, and if these tools weren’t used, they might argue that they fulfilled their duty of care. But this isn’t the end of the road. The refund denial could still be challenged under consumer protection laws.

Doubting the Refund Denial

Google’s refund policy appears rigid. Is it reasonable? A ₱1,700 purchase is significant. Shouldn’t platforms exercise greater leniency, especially when minors are involved? Denying refunds entirely might conflict with the principles of fairness and equity, particularly if the purchase was clearly unauthorized.

Legal Avenues

What options does the parent have under Philippine law?

Consumer Protection Act: The denial might be considered an unfair practice. Filing a complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) could be an option.
Civil Code: The purchase might be voidable under provisions governing contracts entered into by minors. A formal demand letter to Google citing these laws could be a starting point.
RA 8792 (E-Commerce Act): This law governs online transactions but does not explicitly address issues like accidental purchases. However, it emphasizes consumer rights and could be cited to argue for more robust protections.
Public Pressure: While not a legal strategy, raising the issue publicly (e.g., via social media) might compel Google to act, as companies often respond to reputational concerns.

Final Answer

The parent can take the following steps to address the issue:

File a Formal Refund Request: Include detailed evidence, such as proof that the purchase was unauthorized (e.g., initiated by a minor).
Submit a Complaint to the DTI: Argue that Google’s refund policy violates the Consumer Protection Act by being overly rigid in cases involving minors.
Send a Demand Letter to Google: Cite the voidable nature of the transaction under the Civil Code and request a refund.
Consider Public Advocacy: Use public forums to bring attention to the issue, pressuring Google to reconsider its stance.

This approach balances legal arguments with practical steps, ensuring the parent explores every available avenue to resolve the issue.