Poker4u Ethical Dilemmas
Identify the ethical dilemmas.
Get in touch with us at eminencepapers.com to get help with your homework. Our team of experts is ready to help.
The first ethical dilemma, in this case, is the breach of duty of care made by Poker4u owners and the parents of the minors. Breaching the duty of care is an ethical dilemma because the gambling site owners did not take appropriate action in the circumstance of unauthorized gambling by the minors. On the other hand, the parents of the minors did not meet the standard of care that was required of them in averting unauthorized transactions by their children.
Another ethical dilemma is negligence, as implied by who should bear the losses of the unauthorized payment transactions. As demonstrated in the case, children used their parents’ credit cards without their parents’ authorization, implying that the cards were used by persons other than their owners, who do not have the actual authority for such use. In an actual sense, Poker4u was negligent by failing to apply for fraud protection when unauthorized users invaded their clients’ credit cards. On the flip side, the parents are guilty of negligence by letting their children authorize charges on their credit cards.
Another ethical dilemma in the case is the scope of liability for the parents of the minors. Because children do not have the intelligence, knowledge, and experience of adults to engage in activities entailing high economic risk to others, it begs whether the harm sustained by Poker4u is within the scope of liability for negligence. On the contrary, Poker4u clearly outlined strict pre-playing rules on its site that impose full responsibility for the debt incurred to an individual client.
Evaluate who are the stakeholders in this scenario.
The stakeholders, in this case, can broadly be classified into the owners of Poker4u gambling business owners (Mark and Jason), parents of the minors (clients), the under-19-year-old children, and credit card companies. As the Poker4u owners, Mark and Jason are the proximate cause, and the rules and procedures of their gambling business owe their clients the duty that is sufficiently related to the economic loss they incurred. The parents of the children are directly involved in the scenario as their conduct has a substantial certainty of causing harm to their cards. In the same vein, the mentioned children are stakeholders in this scenario since their conduct created an unreasonable risk of economic loss to their parent’s credit cards. At the same time, the major companies of the credit cards involved in the unauthorized charges are the remote cause of the economic damages. They play an essential role in the zero liability and fraud protection of their clients in the event of unauthorized charges.
What are the alternative courses of action. Please discuss the pros and cons of each possible course of action. Make sure you include how the stakeholders will be impacted by the various solutions you are proposing.
In the first course of action, Poker4ui could sue its clients for the negligence of the duty of care. Essentially, the breach of duty asserts that there is a risk that the claimant would suffer harm or, in this case, economic loss if the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. [1]This principle assumes that the risk of economic risk is foreseeable. In this sense, Poker4ui could accuse the clients of blatantly ignoring the warning on its websites requiring players to consent that they are 18 years and older and assume full responsibilities incurred while playing. The advantage of this approach is that the jury might decide the case in its favor, especially if it finds that the accused failed any of the elements of negligence, including the duty of care, causation damage, or breach of duty. However, this way of proceeding has a disadvantage in that the court may ask whether a reasonable individual in the accused’s position would reasonably have foreseen that their credit cards would have been used unauthorized. As a result, no duty is owed to Poker4ui if a reasonable person could not have foreseen the risk of unauthorized transactions in the parents’ credit cards.
An alternative course of action in the negligence case against the parents of the minors could be to raise the issue of proximate cause as the connection between the parents’ breach of duty of care and Poker4ui’s economic losses. In business law, the proximate cause concept is a reasonably close connection between the claimant’s harm and the accused’s wrongdoing.[2] The advantage of this action is that it prevents the parents of the minors from being liable for their children’s consequences that fall outside the scope of their wrongdoings and moral accountability. As such, the full responsibility of the economic loss that resulted from the unauthorized use of their credit cards would be based on the quality of the children’s choices that led to the consequences.[3] This means that Poker4ui’s possible economic loss did not inform the parents’ deliberations and choice. The main reason behind this reasoning is that the consequences were because the credit card use by children are eventualities that lie outside the bundle of consequences that the clients should have reasonably foreseen. Conversely, this approach presents a disadvantage as it defends these parents from the remote consequences of their negligence in two ways. In the first case, it makes the parents’ negligence appear too far-fetched, making the economic loss consequences suffered by Poker4ui seem outside the foreseeable risk of failing to act in a reasonably careful manner.
In terms of how the courses of action mentioned above would impact various stakeholders, Poker4ui would have to prove that, indeed, it provided caution and engaged its online clients in a proper process before initiating any financial transaction. This proof is important in protecting clients’ risky decision and foolish decisions. Similarly, the parents would be liable for being accountable for neglecting their reasonable duty of care. Usually, the special relationship in the duty to act gives parents the duty to protect their children.[4] In the same vein, the children are also likely to be affected because their parents owe them the duty of care by virtue of their physical proximity. The parents should have had them in their minds as being liable to be affected by their carelessness.
Discuss the ethical schools of thought in evaluating your decision.
One of the ethical schools of thought that suffice in the scenario is the role of the parents in preventing unauthorized credit card charges. The parents of the minors would be guilty since they are the primary custodians of their children.[5] They could have put all measures in place to make their credit cards inaccessible to their children. To reinforce the parents’ guilt, Poker4ui has the precautions and consent for bearing the full responsibility that results from the gambling activity on its website. In the same breadth, the parents have some degree of control over their minor children concerning activity on their credit cards that may cause economic or any form of harm to Poker4ui. Thus, the failure of the parents to act reasonably in preventing their children from making unauthorized transactions is an ethical liability they should shoulder.
Recommend a decision. Make sure to provide the rationale for your decision.
The best solution is for the court to dictate that the parents, who are the cardholders, have a liability to pay for Poker4ui‘s economic losses. Usually, in case of unauthorized use, the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) protects cardholders and requires them to dispute the charges with their credit card issuers.[6] However, in this scenario, the parent clients failed to take the required steps or examine their credit card statements, which would have revealed unauthorized use. As such, these actions constitute negligent omission that justifies the charges labeled against them. The opinion relies on the idea that an individual in the best position to prevent and detect authorized use is liable.
Bibliography
Facciolo, Francis J. 2008. “Unauthorized Payment and Who Should Bear the Losses.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 83 (2): 605-631. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3668&context=cklawreview.
Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions. 2020. “Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions”. CACI. California, U.S.A: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. https://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/Judicial_Council_of_California_Civil_Jury_Instructions.pdf
Mann, Richard A, and Barry S Roberts. 2011. Business Law and the Regulation of Business. 11th ed. Mason, U.S.A: Cengage Learning.
Virginia County Consumer Services Division. 2021. “Credit Cards – Understanding The Fair Credit Billing Act Podcast Transcript | Cable and Consumer Services.” Fairfaxcounty.Gov. Accessed from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cableconsumer/csd/credit-cards-understanding-the-fair-credit-billing-act.
Williams, Garrath. 2019. “Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-Negligence.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 14 (1): 113-134. doi:10.1007/s11572-019-09506-8.
[1]. Richard, Mann, A, and Roberts, Barry S. 2011. Business Law and the Regulation of Business. 11th ed. Mason U.S.A: Cengage Learning.
[2]. Garrath, Williams. 2019. “Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-Negligence”. Criminal Law and Philosophy 14 (1): 113-134. doi:10.1007/s11572-019-09506-8.
[3]. Francis, Facciolo, J. 2008. ” Unauthorized Payment Transactions and who Should Bear the Losses”. Chicago-Kent Law Review 83 (2): 605-631. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3668&context=cklawreview
[4]. Richard, Mann, A, and Roberts, Barry S. 2011. Business Law and the Regulation of Business. 11th ed. Mason,U.S.A: Cengage Learning.
[5]. Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions. 2020. “Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions”. CACI. California, U.S.A: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. https://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/Judicial_Council_of_California_Civil_Jury_Instructions.pdf
[6]. Virginia County Consumer Services Division. 2021. “Credit Cards – Understanding The Fair Credit Billing Act Podcast Transcript | Cable and Consumer Services”. Fairfaxcounty.Gov. Accessed May 26. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cableconsumer/csd/credit-cards-understanding-the-fair-credit-billing-act.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Ethics assessment “Poker4u”
Last year, Mark and Jason started a business called Poker4u, based in the British Virgin Islands, through which they run a gambling website called Poker4u.com. For a fee, visitors to the website can play poker and other card games against players from around the world. Game winners earn cash prizes. Poker4u accepts all major credit cards. This website has become very popular with players from across the globe and, as a result, Poker4u has become a very profitable business. Before playing on Poker4u.com, all players must sign a document stating that they are over 18 years of age and agreeing to assume full responsibility for their debts incurred while playing on the site. Many adults have visited this website, played cards and have lost thousands of dollars. However, despite warnings on the site to discourage underage players, Alan, a 14 year old in Cincinnati, Ohio visited this website and used his father’s credit card to play and lost $20,000. In addition, Roger, a 12 year old in Thailand, and Jacob, a 16 year old in Australia, committed similar offenses. The website is now demanding full payment from Alan, Roger and Jacob and each of their parents.
Instructions
Poker4u Ethical Dilemmas
- Identify the ethical dilemmas
- Evaluate who are the stakeholders in this scenario.
- What are the alternative courses of action. Please discuss the pros and cons of each possible course of action. Make sure you include how the stakeholders will be impacted by the various solutions you are proposing.
- Discuss the ethical schools of thought in evaluating your decision.
- Recommend a decision. Make sure to provide the rationale for your decision.
Complete the order form and upload all of your files, including any instructions, rubrics, or other materials provided by your instructor. 
Complete the order payment after filling in the order form. We’ll receive your order and assign it to a writer.
The assigned writer will complete your paper and forward it to our Editing Team for review and approval.
Once approved by the editor, the completed paper will be uploaded to your account for you to download, review and approve.