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.

[yprtb]

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!!

[Phillep_H]

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.

[lthornto]

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.

[Indigo3050]

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).

[xmlns]

Google has a parental controls restriction that parents could set up on any computer, and it is not stored in cookies, it is stored on Google's servers, so your kid would have to be a pretty good hacker to turn it off without your password.

[Dalkorian]

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 ...

[blaqhat]

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?

[blaqhat]

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?

[oops00086]

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.

[brundlefly76]

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.

[ozstriker88]

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.

[Leria]

Well, that is easy enough to fix: simply make minors equals in the eyes of the law, which they are equal to adults anyway.
This is the stupidity that comes when you try to say that children are 'lesser' than adults, and it's time for it to stop and for adults to realize that most children, if not almost all, are smarter, saner, and can take care of themselves (outside of money things) better than adults can.

[Wallaman]

What??? Why need to be 18. What if I got a science project or homework assignment?

[TimmyIsEvil]

"to form a binding contract with Google...."

Creepy! Have we been forming legal and binding contracts with every single click and type and listen and view and send that our very memories can, and will, be used against us in a court of law?

*shudders*

[GlennAllen]

Since the typical "adult" equates "young" with "stupid", this is hardly surprising. But, God!... yes!, let's protect our young and prevent them from acquiring knowledge and experience before something serious happens... I mean, really, they might grow up to be perceptive and understanding and well-adjusted.... we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?! (/sarcasm)

[adel_habib]

There seems to be a mistaken assumption in the article that Google is saying that kids under 18 cannot use their search engine. There are no terms and conditions for the use of the Google search engine, nor does one have to have an account to use it. Therefore, the restrictions Google seem to be applying (not that I spport it) are limited to an actual google account (email and apps). The comparison with My Space and Face book is somewhat unfair given that neither provide a user with an email account that can be used inapproriately. It would be interesting to know the terms and conditions for Yahoo mail or Hot mail.

[ranpha]

Hotmail did not have age restrictions in their ToS.

[mvandemar]

"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."

If someon can void a contract at any time, then how could you possibly define that as "legally binding"?

I think people are confusing the fact that in most jurisdictions, contracts with minors are merely voidable, not void. There is nothing making contracts with minors per se illegal, however the minor has the right to back out without much consequence until the age of majority. Some jurisdictions, like California and New York allow court approval of contracts (especially handy in the entertainment business) which makes the contracts binding. However, courts will require the parent's consent. As for click-through agreements, is seems that the terms are legally enforceable until the time the minor wants to get out! Not very strong protection!