March 27, 2008 9:38 AM PDT

Google: No kids allowed

Google's terms of service, while ignored by the vast majority of users, contain a pretty shocking clause: Under 18's are not permitted to use any of Google's Web properties. That's right, kids--no search, YouTube, Gmail, news, or images.

Under 18s wishing to watch YouTube videos of skateboarding dogs, or perform research for a school project will have to go elsewhere--Ask.com or Microsoft's Live.com search, perhaps. The message from Mountain View seems clear: We don't want your (underage) business.

Google's terms of service, thick with legalese, state that:

"You may not use ... Google's products, software, services and web sites ... and may not accept the Terms if ... you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google.

The problem with this, of course, is that all 50 states in the United States require that someone be at least 18 years old to form a binding contract. As for what happens when a person under 18 attempts to agree to a click-through contract, the jury is still out on that one.

When contacted about the matter, a Google spokesperson initially told me that "users need to be at least 13 years old to use Gmail."

However, when I pointed out that the language in the company's terms of service contradicted her statement, she clarified her remarks, stating that: "We require users to be able to form a legally binding contract in order to use our services. The actual age required to form a legally binding contract may differ based on jurisdiction."

When I asked what the company would do if it found out that someone under 18 were using search, or Gmail, the spokesperson told me:

"We're not in a position to verify the age or legal status of any user, given the tremendous number of users accessing Google services. That said, when we become aware of a user who is violating our Terms of Service, including not being of proper age to accept the Terms of Service, we take appropriate action, which could include the termination of the user's Google Account."

After first seeing Google's no-kids policy in the company's terms of service, any rational person would assume that it's just standard legalese that all companies are required to include. However, it turns out that Google's dot-com competition is far more kid friendly.

Facebook's terms of service state:

"This Site is intended solely for users who are thirteen years of age or older, and users of the Site under 18 who are currently in high school or college."

What about MySpace?:

"By using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that ... you are 14 years of age or older."

As for Microsoft's Live.com search engine and Ask.com, their terms of service don't mention age at all.

To this outside observer, it seems a little bit strange that 13+ year-olds can use social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, where many users post their gender, sexuality, religion, and a large number of potentially embarrassing photos. Yet, those same teenagers are forbidden from conducting a Web search. Surely things should be the other way around.

Conflicting messages
Google is currently running a Doodle 4 Google contest, in which K-12 students take a shot at designing a Google company logo. The winner will receive $10,000 and their art will appear on Google's home page for a day.

When viewed in light of the "no kids here" policy in the terms of service, Google's school outreach seems rather strange. Ironically, the winner of the contest will be forbidden from viewing his or her artwork on the main Google page, unless a parent types in the URL for them.

This is hardly Joe Camel territory, but it is still very strange. Why has the company gone out of its way to write up a terms of service that bans kids, yet at the same time, is engaged in kid-friendly promotions? Why does the site include anti-kid legalese that none of its competitors has opted to include?

The answer, for now, will remain unknown. Google's PR people toe the company line, and its lawyers, well, remain lawyers.

advertisement
 
Discover unlimited music for the price of one CD a month
Recent posts from Surveillance State
U.K. turns CCTV, terrorism laws on pooping dogs
IRS Web site opens door to phishers
Keep your data safe at the border
Can TSA be trusted not to data discriminate?
Finding the line between activism and reporting
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 18 comments (Page 1 of 2)
by yprtb March 27, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
that is so stupid lol. I def. agree with your point, "t seems a little bit strange that 13+ year olds can use social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace, where many users post their gender, sexuality, religion and a large number of potentially embarrassing photos. Yet, those same teenagers are forbidden from conducting a web search. Surely things should be the other way around." I DEF AGREE!!
Reply to this comment
by Phillep_H March 27, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
This is in case they get sued for something, they need an excuse for taking something down to keep from being sued, or need an excuse to try to block someone who is trying to do something Google might get sued for "allowing". It's all about the lawsuits.
Reply to this comment
by lthornto March 27, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
They are not "forbidding" anyone from using their search engine. Since they have no way of verifying anyone's age, they are just clarifying that they are not trying to enter into any contracts with minors. They cannot stop anyone from using any of their services but they can cancel any account at anytime. I don't believe my "accepting" their terms of service is a binding contract either, but that is up to the courts to decide.
Reply to this comment
by Indigo3050 March 27, 2008 1:26 PM PDT
In my opinion there is no other way Google could go. In Myspace you need to state your age to make or view accounts, but on Google a kid can type anything ("Porn", "Guns", "Torrents", etc) and the engine will serve all, no questions asked. What happens when a parent holds Google responsible for making such information available? As I said, there is no other way (apart from total censorship, but let's not go there).
Reply to this comment View reply
by Dalkorian March 27, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
This is nothing more than an obvious case of lawyers unrestricted. As others have pointed out, without this clause a parent could (potentially) sue Google for serving "adult" materials to minors. Google is just making it clear that minors, who are restricted BY LAW from entering contracts (rightfully so, since they're not yet accustomed to being responsible for their actions), can not enter any contracts with Google and therefore Google is not responsible for any minor's actions on the site. Google is not your kids parent. This kind of idiocy (yes, I'm laughing at it myself) wouldn't be necessary if today's parents would accept responsibility for anything - but it's the school's fault their kids are stupid and the police's fault they're delinquents and their bosses fault they don't have time to raise their kids properly and ...
Reply to this comment
by blaqhat March 27, 2008 3:32 PM PDT
You must have run out of ideas today. I was chomping at this one but it looks like Indigo3050 and Dalkorian explained the obvious to you already. "Thick with legalese." Come on. Really?
Reply to this comment
by blaqhat March 27, 2008 3:34 PM PDT
You must have run out of ideas today. I was chomping at this one but it looks like Indigo3050 and Dalkorian explained the obvious to you already. "Thick with legalese." Come on. Really?
Reply to this comment
by oops00086 March 27, 2008 4:25 PM PDT
Anyone can form a legally binding contract no matter what age unless explicated stated in the contract. The difference is, those who have not reached the age of majority (usually 18) have extra legal rights that people over 18 do not. If you are under 18 you can void a contract at any time before you turn 18 or within a "reasonable amount of time" after you turn 18. Adults do not have the option to void contracts like minors do. This is why most businesses specifically state you must be 18 in order to enter their contracts. There isn't actually a minimum legal age you can enter into contracts. another interesting fact is that in most cases, if you are intoxicated and enter into a contract, whenever you become sober again you have the option to void that contract unless it has the "of sound mind and body" clause.
Reply to this comment
by brundlefly76 March 27, 2008 10:05 PM PDT
I don't think its ridiculous at all. In fact, a great TOS would be 'no one has the legal right to use this site, ever. That way, you can tell every litigious parasite on the face of the earth to go *%&( himself when he tries to sue you because he spilt hot coffee on his pants when he saw a pair of boobs on his search results.
Reply to this comment
by ozstriker88 March 27, 2008 10:10 PM PDT
oops00086 is right...minors have the advantage in contracts hence the "shoebox rule" (ex. a minor who bought a car can pretty much destroy it and legally return it in a shoebox )...thats why google and pretty much every company doesn't want to deal with minors cause any misuse that causes legal problems can result in a lot of trouble.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About Surveillance State

  • Christopher Soghoian, a graduate student in the school of Informatics at Indiana University, delves into the areas of security, privacy and e-crime. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network. His homepage is www.dubfire.net/chris and his research group is available at www.stop-phishing.com. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN
advertisement
On MP3.com: Worst MP3 Players of 2007
Visit other CNET Networks sites: