Epic Games Inc. has agreed to pay $520 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that the “Fortnite” videogame developer violated online privacy protections for children and tricked players into making unintended purchases.
The FTC said the agreement consisted of two record-breaking settlements that resolve a pair of civil complaints it was filing against Epic. One, filed in federal court, alleged the company violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from “Fortnite” players under the age of 13 without notifying their parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent.
Epic didn’t admit or deny the FTC’s allegations as part of the settlements.
“No developer creates a game with the intention of ending up here,” Epic said in a statement. “We accepted this agreement because we want Epic to be at the forefront of consumer protection and provide the best experience for our players.”
FTC Chair Lina Khan said protecting the public, especially children, from online privacy invasions and deceptive practices was a top priority. “These enforcement actions make clear to businesses that the FTC is cracking down on these unlawful practices,” she said.
The FTC’s second complaint alleged that Epic deployed a variety of tactics to drive unintended purchases of virtual currency for acquiring perks such as outfits and dance moves in “Fortnite,” including the use of counterintuitive, inconsistent and confusing button configurations. “These tactics led to hundreds of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges for consumers,” it said.
The cases are not related. Why the click bait?
Lol I never said it’s related! But it is a could example of how aggressive the FTC has become. Also when properly motivated they can put to screws to a major corporationThe cases are not related. Why the click bait?
It is because a part of Xbox fans keep saying FTC never won a case and the eat crow come too fast.The cases are not related. Why the click bait?
Your thread title connects the two, so yes, you did say it's related.Lol I never said it’s related! But it is a could example of how aggressive the FTC has become. Also when properly motivated they can put to screws to a major corporation
Just because both parties in the deal agree to it doesn't make the deal kosher. A merger of two of the biggest companies in a given field is NEVER assured, and this one is too big for the health of the industry involved.My moneys on the sale going through. Company A wanting to buy Company B who wants to sell to company A….
My moneys on the sale going through. Company A wanting to buy Company B who wants to sell to company A….
Just because both parties in the deal agree to it doesn't make the deal kosher. A merger of two of the biggest companies in a given field is NEVER assured, and this one is too big for the health of the industry involved.
I think Microsoft's track record is going to kill this deal. Even without the lies about Bethesda when that deal happened, they have a long history of bad acts that suggest letting them buy the biggest games-only publisher was never going to be allowed.Yeah, most likely the acquisition ends up happening. But I think it's going to come with some notable concessions. I also think the FTC want to drag it out some in order to have new regulatory laws implemented.
Which folks can agree is either a good or bad thing, but I do personally think some new regulatory laws should exist, as long as they make sense. Like say, if Company A buys Company B within a span of X Years at Y Dollars, Company A cannot buy any Company C valued at or higher than Z Dollars for a period of ZZ Years.
Stuff like that. Also I think if there's going to be any concessions, one of them might involve spinning out COD and the teams to manage it into its own corporate entity. Kind of like how the Pokemon Company exists. Meaning Microsoft could still own a portion of i, and have the rights to publishing COD on Xbox platforms, whereas say Sony gets publishing rights to COD on PlayStation platforms and some other company would publish the games on PC. Heck, maybe Nintendo could get publishing rights of COD to their systems.
Other companies would be allowed to buy shares into The COD Company but an outright purchase could never happen unless Microsoft decided to sell their own shares, which I doubt they would ever want to do. But this also would allow them to do things like put COD into GamePass if MS wants; if Sony doesn't want to put COD into PS+ that becomes their own choice but if they change their mind, they technically don't have to go through Microsoft directly to set the licensing terms, it would be set between them and this hypothetical "COD Company".
Considering the amount of money COD generates and the fact they are considering expanding into other media ventures (at least that's what some rumors put it), I don't see why spinning off the COD franchise into its own company (meanwhile MS still keeps Activision and non-COD IPs like Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk etc.) would a thing MS'd oppose considering their public statements how the deal is mainly for King, especially if MS still retain some ownership in such a COD Company.
Unless they weren't being forthcoming about actual intent expressed publicly. In which case that would make things even harder for them to get the deal done, I'd imagine.
Yeah, most likely the acquisition ends up happening. But I think it's going to come with some notable concessions. I also think the FTC want to drag it out some in order to have new regulatory laws implemented.
Which folks can agree is either a good or bad thing, but I do personally think some new regulatory laws should exist, as long as they make sense. Like say, if Company A buys Company B within a span of X Years at Y Dollars, Company A cannot buy any Company C valued at or higher than Z Dollars for a period of ZZ Years.
Stuff like that. Also I think if there's going to be any concessions, one of them might involve spinning out COD and the teams to manage it into its own corporate entity. Kind of like how the Pokemon Company exists. Meaning Microsoft could still own a portion of i, and have the rights to publishing COD on Xbox platforms, whereas say Sony gets publishing rights to COD on PlayStation platforms and some other company would publish the games on PC. Heck, maybe Nintendo could get publishing rights of COD to their systems.
Other companies would be allowed to buy shares into The COD Company but an outright purchase could never happen unless Microsoft decided to sell their own shares, which I doubt they would ever want to do. But this also would allow them to do things like put COD into GamePass if MS wants; if Sony doesn't want to put COD into PS+ that becomes their own choice but if they change their mind, they technically don't have to go through Microsoft directly to set the licensing terms, it would be set between them and this hypothetical "COD Company".
Considering the amount of money COD generates and the fact they are considering expanding into other media ventures (at least that's what some rumors put it), I don't see why spinning off the COD franchise into its own company (meanwhile MS still keeps Activision and non-COD IPs like Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk etc.) would a thing MS'd oppose considering their public statements how the deal is mainly for King, especially if MS still retain some ownership in such a COD Company.
Unless they weren't being forthcoming about actual intent expressed publicly. In which case that would make things even harder for them to get the deal done, I'd imagine.
I think Microsoft's track record is going to kill this deal. Even without the lies about Bethesda when that deal happened, they have a long history of bad acts that suggest letting them buy the biggest games-only publisher was never going to be allowed.
So if I said rip dragons at the end would that mean dragons are connected?Your thread title connects the two, so yes, you did say it's related.
Lot of shady sht surrounding the deal tho like koticks friends suddenly buying lots of stock just weeks before the deal was announced. Something could come out of left field to derail it.My moneys on the sale going through. Company A wanting to buy Company B who wants to sell to company A….