The FTC has ordered Epic Games to pay $245 million to players for forcing them to purchase unwanted content in Fortnite. This fine is in favor of the players, and the company will also pay another amount to the Authority as a penalty for this charge.

Epic Games has been accused by the regulator of tricking players into buying unwanted content in Fortnite. Not only that, but the company is also said to be targeting children who make purchases without parental control on their accounts.

The company will pay $245 million to the players and will also pay $275 million to the commission as punishment for its actions. This charge has been filed against the company since last December, and now a settlement has been reached regarding it, and this is the result.

Explaining the issue, the company is said to have used certain methods that force players to make in-game purchases with just one click. For example, the authority stated that the game allows the player to launch it with the press of a button if it is in sleep mode, and also with the press of a button the player can unintentionally view and purchase a certain product.

It is worth noting that Fortnite was released in 2017 and is a battle royale game. The game offers a set of outfits and weapons that players can purchase using in-game V-bucks. Once purchased, the process cannot be refunded or reversed, and you cannot sell a product you have purchased and it becomes worthless. Here is what the authority said, according to VGC:

Fortnite's unintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button layout has resulted in players incurring unwanted charges based on a single button press.

The company has also made it easier for kids to make in-game purchases without needing parental consent. Epic has also terminated the accounts of customers who disputed unauthorized charges with their credit card companies.

This isn't the first time Epic has been forced to pay damages to some users because of the game Fortnite, but this settlement could be the largest yet.

Do you really think the company is involved in a case like this? Or is it just another claim.

Copy the article link The link has been copied