Krafton India seems to be in trouble once again over similar allegations which it faced years earlier. In what is being considered as a landmark case for digital privacy in India, the allegations suggest a disturbing series of events involving data breaches, contract violations, and unauthorized sharing of user data.
An FIR has been filed against Krafton by Santosh Torane, sparking a legal battle centered around digital privacy in India. According to documents accessed by TalkEsport, Torane has accused Krafton India and four of its executives of breaching an online service agreement that included strict confidentiality terms. These terms allowed Torane to access Krafton’s game services under the condition that his personal information would remain protected.
However, the FIR claims Krafton broke that agreement by allegedly sharing Torane’s private data and profiting from it. In simple terms, the company is being accused of illegally selling user data. Torane alleges that this confidential information was leaked and sold to third parties for around ₹2,000 per subscriber.
As a result, Krafton has been booked under serious charges, including criminal conspiracy (IPC 120-B), cheating (IPC 420), and multiple sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000—specifically Sections 72, 72A, and 85. The court has directed the police to launch a formal investigation into the matter.
Read More: Krafton and Mahindra Bring BE 6 in Battlegrounds Mobile India
In response, Krafton India has filed two writ petitions in the Bombay High Court, aiming to challenge the FIR and halt the ongoing investigation. The company is pushing back against the allegations and is seeking legal relief as it contests the case.
The company released a statement saying, “At KRAFTON, the protection of personal data is of utmost importance to us, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards of data security. As the matter is currently sub judice, we believe it is best to wait for the legal process to conclude, after which we will provide any necessary clarifications.”