The European Commission came out swinging. Consumer authorities across the EU launched coordinated actions against ten video game companies over pricing and virtual currency practices that regulators say leave players — especially kids — in the dark.
Why It Matters
The European Commission’s crackdown on in-game currency practices underscores a growing regulatory scrutiny within the gaming industry, particularly concerning consumer transparency and protection. This coordinated action may set a precedent for similar regulatory measures in other regions, potentially reshaping how game developers monetize their products and impacting market dynamics. As consumer awareness of hidden costs increases, companies may need to adapt their business models to maintain player trust and avoid legal repercussions.
The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, which the European Commission manages, named the companies directly: Activision Blizzard UK, Crytek, InnoGames, King.com, Mojang, Plarium Europe, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell, and Ubisoft EMEA. The games caught in the crosshairs include some of the biggest titles on the planet — Minecraft, Candy Crush Saga, Valorant, Call of Duty Mobile, Clash of Clans, Diablo Immortal, For Honor, Forge of Empires, Hunt: Showdown 1896, Mech Arena, and Gardenscapes. Regulators picked these games for their massive reach, their availability across multiple devices, and the wide spread of age ratings they carry — meaning both adults and children are playing them in huge numbers.
Not a small list. Not a small problem.
What the Rules Actually Say
The network published its governing principles back in March 2025. The core demand is pretty basic: players should be able to see, clearly and upfront, what something costs in real money — not just in coins, gems, or whatever branded currency a game uses. When companies stack multiple currencies on top of each other, or force players through repeated exchanges that obscure the actual price, that’s a problem. The guidelines say so explicitly.
There’s also a rule against pushing players to buy more currency than they actually need for a specific item. Bundles that leave users sitting on leftover virtual coins — coins they may never spend — are called out directly. It’s a design choice that benefits the company, not the player, and regulators aren’t pretending otherwise.
Players hold a 14-day withdrawal right for unspent virtual currency. That’s a meaningful protection, and one that many companies probably haven’t been advertising loudly. Contract terms that let companies unilaterally change currency values, or shut down accounts without any recourse for the player, are also in the network’s sights. Children and high spenders are flagged as vulnerable groups, and the guidelines push for extra protections in games that aren’t exclusively aimed at adults.
One important carve-out: cryptocurrencies and digital currencies that work as alternative payment methods under the EU’s fifth anti-money laundering directive are excluded from this crackdown. Currencies earned purely through gameplay — no real money involved — aren’t covered either. The focus is strictly on currencies you buy with cash inside closed game ecosystems.
Loot Boxes, Dark Patterns, and Activision
Beyond pricing transparency, regulators are also looking hard at loot boxes, particularly when children can access them. The concern isn’t subtle — randomized reward systems that cost real money, with no clear disclosure of odds, are a documented risk for younger players and probably for some adults too.
Dark patterns are getting scrutiny as well. Misleading countdown timers that manufacture fake urgency. Scarcity claims that aren’t real. Both are already banned under EU law, and both apparently keep showing up anyway. It’s the kind of gap between what’s legal and what’s actually happening that tends to make regulators impatient.
Activision Blizzard gets its own expanded review. Beyond virtual currency questions, the network is looking at how the company collects player data, whether game design elements push addictive behavior, how default parental controls are set up, and the circumstances under which accounts get blocked. That’s a broader scope than what most of the other companies face, and it seems the network sees Activision Blizzard as a more complex case.
Industry Talks Haven’t Been Enough
Dialogue with industry bodies started last year. Workshops ran in June and September 2025. Companies had chances to engage, adjust, and show they were moving in the right direction.
Many didn’t, or didn’t move far enough.
Self-regulation efforts like PEGI have produced some improvements — regulators acknowledge that. But the network’s position is clear: voluntary measures keep falling short when it comes to the most harmful practices. There’s a gap between what the industry says it’s doing and what consumer protection authorities are actually seeing on the ground.
That gap is probably why the network moved from dialogue to formal coordinated action. Companies had the runway. The question now is whether formal pressure changes behavior faster than workshops did.
In-game spending is a multi-billion dollar segment of the global games market. Virtual currencies, loot boxes, and battle passes have become central to how major titles generate revenue long after the initial sale. Regulators across multiple jurisdictions have been circling these practices for years, but the EU’s coordinated move — covering ten companies and eleven games simultaneously — is one of the more aggressive enforcement postures taken so far.
No fines have been announced yet. No specific deadlines for company responses were given in the Commission’s announcement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which video game companies did the EU target in this action?
The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network named ten companies: Activision Blizzard UK, Crytek, InnoGames, King.com, Mojang, Plarium Europe, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell, and Ubisoft EMEA.
Are cryptocurrencies included in the EU’s in-game currency crackdown?
No. Cryptocurrencies and digital currencies covered under the EU’s fifth anti-money laundering directive are explicitly excluded from the scope of this action.
