EU Targets Gaming Currencies
EU Authorities Launch Coordinated Enforcement Actions Against Nine Major Game Companies
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The nine companies named in the coordinated action are Crytek, InnoGames, King, Mojang, Plarium Europe, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft. Activision Blizzard UK is subject to a separate action concerning Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.
2
Video Games Europe and EGDF cite a European Court of Justice ruling concerning RuneScape currency in support of their argument that game currencies are not “digital representations of value” comparable to crypto; they say they have sought the CPC Network’s legal basis for that classification since spring 2025 without receiving an answer.
3
The industry bodies’ proposed commitments include refunds within 48 hours for wholly unused currency bundles, even when withdrawal rights have been waived, and 30 days’ notice before purchased content is removed.
4
The CPC’s guidance says consumers should be informed of a 14-day right to withdraw from contracts, including contracts involving unused virtual currency.
The EU's consumer watchdog has launched enforcement actions against nine major game companies over confusing in-game currencies and aggressive spending tactics. GameDev News reports that the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network is targeting studios like Riot Games, Supercell, King, and Mojang to tighten rules on virtual currency pricing, loot boxes, and protections for children spending real money inside games.
A separate action targets Activision Blizzard for Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile. GamesIndustry says the regulators are demanding clearer prices, simpler currency systems, and stronger safeguards against unwanted purchases—requirements that game industry groups argue go beyond current EU law and could be unworkable in practice.
Nine Studios Face EU Enforcement Over Spending Designs
The nine companies under coordinated action are Crytek (Hunt: Showdown 1896), InnoGames (Forge of Empires), King, Mojang (Minecraft), Plarium Europe, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell, and Ubisoft. Mobile Gamer reports that authorities are investigating how these studios use dark patterns—deceptive design tricks—and surprise charges to push spending, especially on loot boxes that give random rewards for real money.
The EU regulators say game makers failed to act after receiving 2025 guidance on best practices. Game Rant notes that authorities now want mandatory 14-day refund windows, clear real-world pricing before purchase, and explicit warnings about withdrawal rights—standards already required in other digital markets but rarely applied to gaming.
Industry Groups Push Back on Legal Authority
Video Games Europe and the European Game Developers Federation say regulators are overreaching. IEU Monitoring reports that industry bodies argue in-game currencies are not regulated financial instruments like cryptocurrency. They cite a 2024 European Court ruling on RuneScape currency that supports their position—one they say the CPC Network has never answered since spring 2025.
The groups dispute whether consumer rules designed for real-world goods make sense for virtual currency earned through gameplay or sold in bundles. They argue that requiring 48-hour refunds on unused currency and 30 days' notice before content removal would fundamentally break how modern games operate financially and technically.
Industry Proposes Compromise on Refunds and Safeguards
Rather than wait for enforcement, game publishers have offered their own commitments. Mobile Gamer reports that industry groups now propose 48-hour refunds for wholly unused currency bundles—even when players waive withdrawal rights—plus 30 days' notice before purchased content disappears. They also pledge stronger child-safety measures and clearer pre-purchase information.
The standoff reveals a deeper tension: how to apply consumer protections written for physical goods to digital games where spending is mixed with gameplay rewards. Regulators want mandatory transparency and exit rights. Publishers argue such rules will either be impossible to follow or force them to redesign their entire monetization model.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
13
Articles
4
Reach
17
A
AnonymousAuthor
