Ethical Dilemmas in Online Gambling Businesses
Ethics assessment
“Poker4u”
Professor
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
1) Identify the ethical dilemmas
2) Evaluate who are the stakeholders in this scenario.
3) 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.
4) Discuss the ethical schools of thought in evaluating your decision.
5) Recommend a decision. Make sure to provide the rationale for your decision.
Ethic Essay
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Course code and name
Instructor’s name
Date
Ethics Essay
Ethical Dilemmas
One of the ethical dilemmas presented in the case is how players below 18 years managed to play games on the website. The website is designed to only allow people over 18 years to play games. The gaming company has tried to counter this by using a document to verify the age of people who are supposed to play on their website, but users successfully bypassed the system. This shows the level of dilemma in this situation because the website is responsible for ensuring every user is an adult. The website's current state presents a dilemma on who should be responsible for protecting minors against gaming. If a minor can bypass the age verification process, the website has failed to protect minors against using their services. The website blames the children for having bypassed the age verification system is made. As a result, the website requires payment from the children's parents. It is a dilemma as to who should be compensating the other party. The website allowed minors to play the games, and therefore, they are ethically required to compensate for the infringement of age rights. On the other hand, children are not allowed to play the games and could be ethically liable for compensating the gaming company.
Another dilemma is whether the parents should compensate the website, yet the gaming took place without their consent. There is a problem with consent in cases such as this, as minors cannot decide to pay for games. This could mean that parents should be responsible for compensating for any losses incurred by their children's actions on the website. The ethical issues that arise from the above case are whether minors should be held to a different standard and the responsibility of parents and the gaming industry. The current online gaming system is set up in such a way to allow minors access without parental consent. Hence, this questions the role of parents in controlling how their children use such websites. It is a dilemma whether the parent is responsible for the loss incurred or whether the website should compensate the parents.
Stakeholders Involved
Stakeholders are the individuals responsible for the case. In this case, the site owners, Mark and Jason, make the key stakeholders. The other stakeholders involve the minors, Alan, Roger, and Jacob. The minors' parents are also key stakeholders since they are involved in the compensation process.
Alternative Courses of Action
The first alternative is for the parents to compensate the website. According to state laws, it is illegal for minors to participate in gambling (Belk, 2021). Therefore, the children committed a crime punishable by the law. Hence, their parents should compensate the company. The main advantage of this alternative is that it would prevent further lawsuits from taking place. For instance, the parents might be held responsible for allowing their children to access a betting site and make payments using personal credit cards. The parents are responsible for ensuring that their unauthorized parties do not have access to their credit cards. The second alternative is for the gaming company to compensate the children. As mentioned earlier, the children were playing games of their own volition, and they were oblivious that they were legally forbidden from doing so. The company has no reason to compensate them and should not pay any amount to them. The website should not be held responsible for allowing children to play games on their site. The website has only tried to ensure that minors do not play on their site but failed in this endeavor. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it could lead to a case of false representation. The children would claim that they were unaware that they were playing on the wrong site. However, since the site does not have an authentic mechanism for verifying ages, it is highly possible that minors were able to pass through the verification system and access their games.
The other alternative is to ensure no compensation takes place. The website and the minors have committed a mistake and should settle the issue with...