Corporate Greed Case Study: Epic Games & Its Impact on Children and Consumers

TLDR: Epic Games, the creator of the massively popular video game Fortnite, was formally accused by the Federal Trade Commission of deploying a sophisticated architecture of manipulation and unauthorized billing.

According to the federal complaint, the company knowingly used deceptive design tricks, known as “dark patterns,” to bill millions of consumers for unwanted in-game items without their express consent. The system was so effective that for over a year, children could rack up hundreds of dollars in charges with the simple press of a button, while Epic Games ignored internal warnings and millions of customer complaints.

This investigation reveals a distressing example of how modern corporate strategy under neoliberal capitalism can prioritize profit extraction over consumer protection, ethical design, and the well-being of its most vulnerable users.

Read on to understand the full scope of the allegations and the systemic failures that enabled them.

Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct

The Federal Trade Commission’s complaint against Epic Games outlines a multi-year pattern of unfair and deceptive practices centered on its flagship product, Fortnite.

Epic Games, developer of a game with over 400 million registered users, many of whom are children, is alleged to have systematically charged consumers for in-game purchases without obtaining their express informed consent. These in-game items include digital costumes, dance moves, and other virtual goods purchased with a currency called “V-Bucks.”

The core of the misconduct lies in the game’s user interface and billing structure.

The legal complaint details how Epic configured its system to allow for one-touch purchases with no confirmation step, leading to countless accidental and unauthorized charges. For more than a year after launching in-app purchases, children could buy V-Bucks simply by pressing buttons, with no action or consent required from a parent or the cardholder whose payment information was saved on the account. This practice persisted despite prior public enforcement actions by the FTC against other major tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google for similar failures in their kids’ gaming apps.

The scale of the issue was massive, with Epic receiving over one million complaints related to unwanted charges. Internally, employees repeatedly flagged the problems.

They noted that the lack of a purchase confirmation screen was a “dark UX [user experience] pattern” and a significant source of customer complaints. Despite these warnings, the company feared that adding a confirmation button would introduce “friction” that could “result in a decent number of people second guessing their purchase” and reduce the number of “impulse purchases.”

Furthermore, when consumers discovered these unauthorized charges and initiated chargebacks with their credit card companies, Epic had a policy of banning their Fortnite accounts. This locked users out of all content they had previously paid for, which in some cases amounted to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The company allegedly did this without refunding consumers for the content they lost access to, effectively punishing them for exercising their legal right to dispute unauthorized charges.

A Timeline of Alleged Misconduct

The legal complaint provides a clear timeline of events, showing a pattern of delayed action and persistent problematic practices.

Regulatory Capture & Loopholes

This story here exposes the slippery nature of a regulatory environment shaped by neoliberal ideology, where corporate self-regulation is favored over stringent government oversight. The FTC complaint reveals that Epic engaged in practices that had already been the subject of public law enforcement actions against other tech giants. This indicates a corporate environment where companies may view fines or settlements as a mere cost of doing business rather than a deterrent to unethical behavior.

The system’s design relied on exploiting legal and regulatory gray areas. For years, the default setting in Epic’s system was to save a user’s payment information after a single purchase, automatically enabling future one-click charges.

While not explicitly illegal in all contexts, this practice becomes predatory when applied to a platform heavily used by children who are unlikely to understand the financial implications. The company was aware that many consumers “didn’t even realize” their credit card information was saved.

Furthermore, the company’s implementation of consumer protection features appeared to be a reaction to internal pressure and the looming threat of investigation rather than a proactive commitment to ethical conduct.

The option to not save a credit card was introduced via a small checkbox that most users overlooked. The requirement to re-enter a CVV, a standard anti-fraud measure, was implemented only after billions of dollars in V-Bucks had already been charged.

This demonstrates a pattern of doing the bare minimum, a hallmark of corporate behavior in a system with weak regulatory enforcement. The company operated for years with a billing system that ran counter to established best practices, profiting from the lag between the adoption of deceptive tactics and the eventual regulatory response.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs

At its core, the Epic Games case is a story about the relentless pursuit of profit maximization, a foundational tenet of neoliberal capitalism.

The legal documents paint a picture of a company where revenue growth consistently trumped ethical considerations and consumer welfare. Internal discussions cited in the complaint provide a window into this prioritization. When employees suggested adding a purchase confirmation button—a simple feature to prevent accidental buys—the idea was allegedly dismissed over concerns it would add “friction” and reduce “impulse purchases.”

This logic reveals a business model that not only accommodates but actively relies on user error and impulsivity.

The interface was intentionally designed to be counterintuitive. On PlayStation controllers, for example, the ‘Square’ button was used to purchase an item but also to perform other, non-chargeable actions in different parts of the game, leading to user confusion and unwanted spending. An Epic Player Support representative admitted in an email to a consumer, “It is very common to make an accidental purchase!” This was a feature of a business model designed for maximum revenue extraction.

Even the refund process was engineered to discourage use, a strategy an Epic UX designer referred to as adding “friction for friction’s sake.” The link to request a refund was deliberately hidden in the settings menu, a location so obscure that the designer reported “not a single player found this option in the most recent round of UX testing.” When the designer asked a superior if the feature should be made easier to find, the response was, “it is perfect where it is at.”

After an “Undo” button proved too effective at reversing unwanted charges, Epic changed its name, reduced its size, moved it, and required users to press and hold it—a confirmation step notably absent from the initial purchase.

These actions represent a calculated corporate strategy to retain revenue, even when that revenue was generated through unintentional or unauthorized transactions.

The Economic Fallout

The direct economic fallout of Epic’s alleged practices fell squarely on the shoulders of ordinary families. The complaint is filled with examples of parents who were shocked to find hundreds, and in one case nearly $500, in unauthorized charges on their credit cards. One parent complained that their 11-year-old son had racked up $140 in charges in less than eight days after a single authorized purchase because the company had saved their credit card information without their full understanding. These were not isolated incidents by any means in case that’s what you’re thinking! “Unrecognized and Fraudulent Charges” was one of the top five reasons consumers complained to Epic.

The financial injury was compounded by Epic’s policy of banning users who disputed charges. When a consumer exercised their legal right to a chargeback, they lost access to their entire library of paid-for content on that account, representing a total loss of their previous investment in the game.

This policy created a powerful disincentive for consumers to seek redress, forcing them to choose between accepting unauthorized charges or losing potentially hundreds of dollars worth of digital goods. The company’s actions led to tens of thousands of chargebacks, so many that Visa and Mastercard placed Epic in their chargeback monitoring programs, threatening the company’s ability to process payments.

The final consent order mandated a payment of $245 million to the FTC, specifically for consumer redress. While this figure seems substantial, it must be contextualized against the enormous revenue generated by the practices in question. By November 2018 alone, Epic had already billed for over 200 million V-Bucks charges, totaling more than $4 billion. The settlement, therefore, represents a fraction of the revenue generated during the period of the alleged misconduct, illustrating how financial penalties in a neoliberal system can be dwarfed by the profits gained from the harmful behavior itself.

Environmental & Public Health Risks

The provided legal document focuses exclusively on financial and consumer harm and doesn’t contain any information regarding environmental damage or direct public health risks in the traditional sense, such as pollution or unsafe physical products. The harm documented is centered on digital consumer rights, financial exploitation, and the psychological impact of deceptive design on users, particularly children.

However, the case raises significant public health concerns related to the digital environment. The use of “dark patterns” and manipulative design can be understood as a public health issue in the context of mental well-being and the development of healthy consumer habits, especially among young people. By creating a system that encourages impulsive behavior, induces regret, and fosters a sense of powerlessness, such corporate practices contribute to a digital ecosystem that can be detrimental to its users.

The government’s legal complaint highlights how these design choices were deliberately made to exploit psychological vulnerabilities for financial gain, a practice that mirrors public health debates over industries like tobacco and gambling, which similarly profit from addiction and harmful behaviors.

Exploitation of Workers

While the legal complaint does not detail allegations of worker exploitation in the form of wage theft or unsafe physical working conditions, it does reveal a different kind of internal strain. The documents show that Epic Games employees, from UX designers to fraud consultants to the Director of Player Support, repeatedly identified the core problems and advocated for solutions. They raised concerns about unauthorized kid purchases, the lack of confirmation screens, and the deceptive nature of the user interface.

An Epic UX designer recommended a “‘Hold to Purchase’ mechanic” to reduce accidental buys without adding significant friction.

Epic Games’ Fraud and Risk Consultant pointed out that requiring a CVV was “standard / best practice” to prevent kids from using their parents’ cards without permission.

The Director of Player Support circulated status updates highlighting “Accidental Purchase Claims” as a top issue that could be solved with confirmation screens. These repeated recommendations from employees with direct knowledge of the problems were allegedly ignored or delayed by higher-level decision-makers who prioritized revenue.

This dynamic illustrates a form of moral injury and disempowerment within the corporate structure. Employees who sought to act ethically and protect consumers were overruled by a profit-driven agenda. Being forced to implement and support a system you know is causing harm to customers, including children, represents a significant ethical burden.

This highlights how a corporate culture singularly focused on profit maximization can create a toxic working environment where the professional and ethical judgment of employees is suppressed.

The FTC got $72 million sent to almost 630,000 people who got harmed by Epic Games’ dark patterns in Fortnite: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-sends-refund-payments-consumers-impacted-epic-games-unlawful-billing-practices

There is a press release about the original thing here on the FTC’s website too: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making