Mom Lies About Kids’ Ages To Save $5, Ends Up Paying $12 More And Wasting Two Hours

Some people will go to ridiculous lengths to dodge a few dollars. A box office employee recalled a petty but satisfying encounter with a mom who insisted her clearly teenage kids were “13” to score cheaper tickets.

When the film turned out to be rated 14A, her plan instantly collapsed and her stubborn attitude meant she had to pay even more than she would’ve in the first place. The worker’s calm logic? Priceless.

Every box office worker knows that customers sometimes stretch the truth

Mom Lies About Kids’ Ages To Save $5, Ends Up Paying $12 More And Wasting Two Hours — not the actual photo

Selling age-based tickets at movie theaters often places staff in the position of balancing customer service with policy enforcement.

In this case, the OP, working at a theater box office, encountered a parent attempting to misrepresent the ages of her children to secure discounted tickets.

The children’s ages were reported as 13 to qualify for children’s pricing, but the film’s rating required supervision for anyone under 14, creating a direct conflict between theater policy and parental misrepresentation.

Faced with the inconsistency, the OP enforced the policy: unless the children were ID-verified as 14 or older, they either needed adult accompaniment or to choose a different film.

The mother, after arguing, ended up buying an adult ticket and accompanying them, thereby negating her attempt at saving a few dollars via age-shifting.

From one angle, the mother’s push for cheaper tickets is understandable: admission prices in many cinemas are high, and many families try to reduce costs however they can. On the flip side, the employee is bound by the theatre’s rating policy and age-based pricing rules.

The mother’s choice to deliberately misstate her children’s age bypasses policy and places staff in the awkward position of policing honesty. The employee’s motivation appears grounded in fairness and adherence to regulations; the customer’s motivations lean toward self-interest and cost-saving malpractice.

This touches on the broader social issue of age-based rule enforcement and customer expectations in service industries.

Whether in cinemas, retail discounts, or travel fares, when pricing tiers are based on age or status, there’s a perennial tension between rule-based fairness and individual attempts to game the system.

In the realm of movie ratings, age-based restrictions exist not only for pricing but for content safety. For example, the 14A rating in Alberta means “suitable for persons 14 years of age or older; persons under 14 must be accompanied by an adult.”

Staff members become de facto enforcers of both business rules and legal/board-mandated regulations, which puts them in a tricky spot when a customer complains.

What should the OP (or someone in a similar position) consider doing?

Firstly, clearly communicate the policy: when age affects pricing and content access, it’s worth stating upfront and transparently.
Secondly, consistent enforcement builds credibility: if the rules apply to one customer, they should apply to all, avoiding perceptions of favoritism or capriciousness.
Thirdly, maintain professionalism even in the face of rudeness: the OP did well by calmly laying out the rule and offering options rather than escalating the conflict.
Finally, for the business side, it may help to review whether the signage and staff scripting clearly match the policy and whether staff feel supported when customers push the boundaries.