Minecraft: 9-year-old player reportedly spent over $100,000 using father’s credit card
In brief
- Game Rant reports a 9-year-old Minecraft player may have spent more than $100,000 via his father’s credit or business card.
- The article mentions the YouTube channel Mighty Mike Plays, which was reportedly paused after the spending was discovered.
- According to the report, the promotional spending started at around $20 and kept climbing after a spending limit was allegedly removed.
What happened
Game Rant says a 9-year-old Minecraft player allegedly racked up more than $100,000 in charges using his father’s credit card, or possibly a business card. The article uses reported language, so the exact financial details are not confirmed based on the information provided. It presents the amount as a reported expense rather than an independently verified transaction history.
According to the article, the child uploaded Minecraft footage to a YouTube channel called Mighty Mike Plays, with permission from his father David Sarkisyan. Sarkisyan reportedly said in a video that the channel is being put on hold for now after the spending was discovered. The available information does not give an exact date for that video, but it links the statement directly to the discovery of the charges.
Game Rant also reports that the spending began with an ad budget of about $20 and then escalated after the child allegedly removed a spending limit. Using a company credit card to promote the channel is also said to have caused problems at work, although it is still unclear what the final employment consequences will be. The provided facts explicitly note that those consequences remain unresolved, so that part of the story is still incomplete.
The core of the report is a combination of three concrete elements: a young child, a very large amount of ad or promotional spending, and a YouTube channel that the father says is being temporarily shut down. The publication focuses on the alleged route the charges took, but several details remain open, including the exact payment method, whether the charges were reversed, and the current status of the accounts involved.
Timeline
2026-09-16 — Game Rant publishes its report on the alleged Minecraft spending by a 9-year-old player.
Unknown, before publication — The ad spending reportedly starts at around $20 and rises to more than $100,000.
Unknown, before publication — The article says the spending continued after a spending limit was allegedly removed.
Unknown, before publication — The child reportedly posts Minecraft videos to Mighty Mike Plays with permission from David Sarkisyan.
Unknown, after the spending is discovered — David Sarkisyan reportedly says Mighty Mike Plays is being temporarily paused.
Unknown, after the spending is discovered — The use of a company credit card reportedly causes problems at work, but the outcome is not yet known.
Background
The story centers on a young Minecraft channel, paid promotion, and access to a credit card. Based on the information provided, there is no independent confirmation of the exact payment setup or whether the charges were later reversed. That means it is still unclear whether the reported amount of more than $100,000 was fully charged, remains outstanding, or has since been partially corrected.
The name Mighty Mike Plays is mentioned in the article as the channel that has been temporarily paused. It is unclear whether that is the only account involved, or whether the pause will become permanent. It is also not confirmed whether the channel was used only for Minecraft content or whether other videos or promotions were running as well. The available details are limited to the claim that Minecraft footage was uploaded and that promotional spending escalated through a payment card.
David Sarkisyan is presented in the provided information both as the father of the 9-year-old player and as the person who reportedly explained the situation in a video. The article also says that using a company credit card has led to problems at work. The exact nature of those problems — such as a warning, internal review, or other disciplinary action — is not specified.
The technical side of the story is also only described in broad strokes. The article mentions a starting amount of about $20 and says a spending limit was allegedly removed, but it does not provide further details about the ad account settings, the payment method, or who had access at each stage. As a result, the cause-and-effect chain in the report is largely based on the article’s own account.