Between $2012$ and $2016,$ Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook all faced class action lawsuits involving charges made to parents for their children's in$-$app and other virtual purchases using their parents' credit cards.$$

In $2012,$ parents of minors sued Apple for supplying "free" game applications on iPhones that allowed subsequent purchases of in$-$game currencies.$$ Parents would log into the game for their children and the children would then $($without the parents' knowledge or consent$)$ make in$-$app purchases on the game ranging from $$99\mathrm{.}99$ to $$338\mathrm{.}72$ at a time.$$

Apple's argument was that the governing contract was actually the Terms of Service between the parents and Apple, which stated that any unauthorized log$-$in on a user's account or unauthorized purchases made by anyone on the account were the responsibility of the account holder.$$

The parents argued that all in$-$game purchases made by minors were separate contracts that could be disaffirmed by a parent or guardian.$$ Apple responded to this argument by stating that these separate contracts could not legally exist, since the contractual offer was made to the parents in the Terms of Service, but the offer was accepted by the children, while the consideration was provided by the parents $($the original offerees$).$

Article from The Week $-$ "Parents vs Apple: The 'Zombie Cafe' lawsuit"

CNN article $-$ "Apple settles suit over in$-$game iTunes purchases by kids

List of filings in the class action lawsuit $-$ Meguerian v$.$ Apple, Inc.

QUESTIONS:

Do you think that the individual purchases made by the minors should have qualified as separate contracts between Apple and the minors?$$ Why or why not?

If the purchases had been found to be contracts between Apple and the minors, do you think $($based on this week's materials$)$ the parents would have been able to void these contracts?