A 9-year-old child spent 6,000 yuan on in-app purchases in half a month, and the parents are questioning whether CoStudy is a study room or a “money-sucking room.”

Recently, a parent named Ms. Wang filed a complaint on the public interaction platform “Service Pai” (https://tousu.thepaper.cn), stating that since September of this year, her 9-year-old child had accumulated over 6,300 yuan in charges on an online study room software called “CoStudy” without her knowledge. Afterward, she applied for a refund through Apple’s official minor refund channel, but both of her applications were denied. CoStudy responded that the existing evidence could not prove that the charges were made by a minor, and therefore, a refund could not be issued.

In response to this dispute, The Paper contacted CoStudy. A staff member stated that the child’s ID provided by the consumer could not prove that the charges were made by a minor. The consumer had provided the child with the payment method, which could be seen as tacit approval for the child’s charges, “thus it cannot be determined that the minor charged without the parent’s knowledge.”

Ms. Wang questioned whether there was an unlimited charging option. To facilitate her child’s daily homework submissions, she prepared an infrequently used Apple phone. When her child downloaded the CoStudy app, she noticed that it was a virtual study room. To make it easier for her child to unlock the phone and check in, she also registered the child’s fingerprint.

Unexpectedly, after receiving the credit card bill on October 3, she discovered that the bill for that month amounted to over 8,000 yuan, “usually it is only two to three thousand yuan per month.” Upon investigation, Ms. Wang found multiple charges for CoStudy in the bill. Her compiled bill screenshots showed that from September 16 to September 28, over 6,300 yuan was charged to CoStudy, including “Co Island Membership” (monthly subscription for 3 months and 12 months) totaling 313 yuan, and the purchase of 60,440 “Co Diamonds” totaling 6,044 yuan.

“On September 17 and 18 alone, the charging records reached 5,030 yuan.” Ms. Wang believes that CoStudy’s payment settings are very unreasonable, “There are no limits on daily spending, and the child can easily complete payments through the credit card and Huabei linked to Alipay.”

The Paper noted that the CoStudy app is categorized as an efficiency software in the Apple App Store, developed by Kesi Dadi Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. On December 6, after downloading the CoStudy app, the reporter found that users could log in using their phone number or WeChat without real-name authentication. Additionally, users can purchase virtual currency called “Co Diamonds” to buy props, exclusive dormitory tickets, clothing, food, and other virtual items, create virtual stores, decorate simulated classrooms and homes, and leave messages on CoWall. The purchase options for Co Diamonds range from 6 yuan to 328 yuan, corresponding to different quantities of Co Diamonds.

However, CoStudy’s “User Recharge Agreement” specifically states, “This platform does not encourage minors to use related services. Minors should operate under the supervision of guardians or with explicit consent from guardians; otherwise, they are not allowed to use the platform’s recharge services.”

“CoStudy appears to be a study room, but it includes operational mini-games where children can buy props, skins, and exchange gifts.” Ms. Wang stated, “My child charged nearly 4,000 yuan in one day without any limits, and could keep charging.”

“When making payments, all that is needed is a fingerprint, and there are no SMS notifications; I do not receive any recharge records.” Upon discovering this situation, Ms. Wang immediately took back the phone and canceled the payment function and monthly subscriptions. Subsequently, she applied for a refund through Apple’s official minor refund channel, only to receive a notification the next day stating that she did not meet the refund requirements.

On October 5, Ms. Wang initiated another application. On October 6, she contacted Apple customer service, stating, “The recharge was done by the child, and we were unaware.” She said the response was that they would reflect the situation, but the final review result still did not meet the refund conditions.

In addition to Apple, Ms. Wang also attempted to contact CoStudy. “After adding CoStudy staff on WeChat, they initially showed the child’s registered account and recharge orders, stating that if refunded directly from CoStudy, Apple would deduct a 30% handling fee. Ultimately, they said they could not confirm that it was a minor’s recharge, so no refund would be issued.”

“My child should not even know that he is recharging; he is not yet ten years old.” Ms. Wang mentioned that her child repeatedly clicked on the largest package of 328 yuan for 3,280 Co Diamonds and purchased three types of monthly memberships, “An adult would not buy three types of memberships.”

On November 18, CoStudy customer service contacted Ms. Wang, offering a refund of 1,000 yuan, which she did not accept.

CoStudy stated that they could not confirm that the recharge was made without the parent’s knowledge. The staff member explained that for a minor’s recharge refund, two points must be confirmed: first, it must indeed be the minor’s action, and second, the parent must be unaware. “The consumer only provided the child’s ID, which cannot prove that the recharge was made by a minor unless Ms. Wang can provide clear evidence of the minor’s operation; otherwise, it cannot be processed according to the minor refund policy.”

Regarding the child’s ability to complete payments using a fingerprint, the staff member stated, “The parent provided the recharge method, which can be seen as parental consent.” The staff member also mentioned that generally, when an Apple phone is linked to WeChat, Alipay, or bank accounts, notifications should be received, so it cannot be determined that the minor charged without the parent’s knowledge.

Subsequently, The Paper contacted Apple customer service. The staff stated that refunds for minor recharges require a review process, “It is unclear whether the review is done manually or automatically.”

In response, Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm and a well-known public interest lawyer, believes that in this case, the online study room software includes operational game functions and involves recharge consumption, which should be regulated and constrained by the “Notice on Preventing Minors from Becoming Addicted to Online Games.” “The child involved is a person with limited civil capacity, and any legal actions taken without parental consent or ratification are considered contracts with uncertain validity, thus legally invalid, and the game company should issue a refund.”

“The identification of minors and how to confirm that the recharge was made by a minor remain the biggest challenges and pain points in the current game refund rights protection. Many platforms and game companies require parents to provide evidence, but this is very difficult for parents, as current mobile phones do not have real-time monitoring capabilities.” Zhao Liangshan pointed out that according to Article 34 of the Civil Code, guardians who fail to fulfill their guardianship duties or infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the ward shall bear legal responsibility. “In this case, the fact that a 9-year-old child can recharge to play games indicates that the parent did not properly supervise the phone payment password or the child, and the parent needs to bear the responsibility for inadequate supervision.”

Zhao Liangshan suggested that game companies should implement facial recognition systems in their games to ensure that real-name authentication is effectively enforced.