Forever might not actually be forever, and Snapchat didn't get away with its deception as the FTC slapped charges against the company over the controversy. But it won't go to court after the two sides settled charges and users are now able to understand why some of their messages and photos are still around.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Snapchat settled over alleged deception of users who had been told their messages would "disappear forever," according to the marketing by Snapchat. But, this wasn't always the case and the FTC wanted an explanation.

Conversations, images and videos could be saved by third-party apps, users taking screenshots and other means, although the company did say that it did not promote this sort of activity. Still, the FTC intervened.

At the heart of the issue is security. And the FTC claimed Snapchat was not being honest about the information it gathered from users. The complaint argued that personal information, including location of a user and their address book was given to security researchers and included some 4.6 million user names and phone numbers.

Snapchat has become a leader in the start-up world after it told off Facebook and a $3 billion acquisition offer, making it a champion of a fast growing user base, but with little revenue to show for it. The move left many investors questioning the executives' decision, but the app has received massive appeal from users who want shorter conversations to remain a part of history. Forever.

But that forever claim may have been Snapchat's undoing at the current moment.

"If a company markets privacy and security as key selling points in pitching its service to consumers, it is critical that it keep those promises," FTC Charwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. "Any company that makes misrepresentations to consumers about its privacy and security practices risks FTC action."

Industry experts are looking toward what Snapchat's response will be and if the company will begin to introduce new measures that ensure personal information cannot be taken and used by researchers as well as if the idea of "forever" may be lost to the company and its efforts to promote the app as it has been doing.

While there was no monetary penalty, the company is prohibited from "misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains the privacy, security, or confidentiality of users' information," and for the next two decades will be forced to maintain a privacy program monitored by an independent privacy professional.

If it fails to meet the settlement requirement, the company could face hefty fines.