Excerpt
Epic Games faced a fine from the FTC after allegations that the company employed deceptive techniques to manipulate players into making unintended purchases, while also allowing children to accumulate unauthorized charges without parental consent.
Our analysis
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Epic Games, accusing the company of violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) and engaging in deceptive practices. Epic Games has made it difficult for users to cancel or request refunds for unauthorized charges, particularly for Battle Passes, Llamas, and Cosmetics in their game Fortnite. Initially, users were not allowed to cancel any charges, but starting from June 2019, Epic introduced a limited-time option to cancel Cosmetics charges, albeit with certain limitations. However, users have complained that Epic employs design tactics, known as "dark patterns," to discourage cancellations and refunds by obscuring the option or making it hard to find. Furthermore, Epic intentionally created a complex and lengthy refund request process, hiding the link under the "Settings" tab and requiring users to navigate unnecessary steps such as providing a reason and confirming their intent to request a refund. These practices have raised concerns about Epic's approach towards customer refunds and their transparency in addressing unauthorized charges.
Outcome
As part of the settlement, Epic Games agreed to pay a $245 million fine, which will be used to refund affected consumers. The company is now prohibited from using dark patterns or charging consumers without their explicit consent. Epic Games is also barred from blocking access to purchased content when unauthorized charges are disputed.
Parties
Federal Trade Commission & Epic Games
Case number
Docket No. C-4790
Decision
Related deceptive patterns
Hard to cancel (aka "Roach Motel") is a deceptive pattern where it is easy to sign up for a service or subscription, but very difficult to cancel it. This typically involves hiding the cancellation option, requiring users to call customer services to cancel, and making the cancellation process overly complex and time-consuming. This can cause users to give up trying to cancel, and continue paying for the service for a longer period.
Forced action involves a provider offering users something they want - but requiring them to do something in return. It may be combined with other deceptive patterns like sneaking (so users don't notice it happening) or trick wording (to make the action seem more desirable than it is). Sometimes an optional action is presented as a forced action, through the use of visual interference or trick wording. In cookie consent interfaces, forced action is sometimes carried out through "bundled consent". This involves combining multiple agreements into a single action, and making it hard or impossible for a user to selectively grant consent.
Obstruction is a type of deceptive pattern that deliberately creates obstacles or roadblocks in the user's path, making it more difficult for them to complete a desired task or take a certain action. It is used to exhaust users and make them give up, when their goals are contrary to the business's revenue or growth objectives. It is also sometimes used to soften up users in preparation for a bigger deception. When users are frustrated or fatigued, they become more susceptible to manipulation.
Related laws
Prevents dishonest or misleading actions involving the gathering, utilization, and/or exposure of children's personal information on the Internet