European Commission Targets Major Game Companies Over Virtual Currency Practices

The European Commission has escalated its scrutiny of virtual currencies and in-game purchases, publicly identifying nine video game companies in a consumer-protection action intended to make digital spending clearer and fairer for players. The move, announced on September 30, 2026, follows earlier guidance from the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, or CPC Network, concerning the way games present premium currencies, item prices and purchase terms.

Among the companies named are Activision Blizzard UK, Mojang AB, Riot Games Limited, Supercell Oy and Ubisoft EMEA SAS. Four additional companies are included in the action, although their names were not listed in the available announcement details. The Commission and national consumer authorities are asking the affected businesses to bring their systems into line with principles designed to prevent players from being misled about what virtual items actually cost.

The enforcement step matters because premium currencies sit at the center of modern game monetisation across PC, console and mobile titles. Players may buy coins, points, gems, credits or other digital tokens using real money, then exchange those tokens for cosmetics, battle passes, gameplay items, packs or other optional content. The Commission's concern is not simply that games sell virtual goods. Instead, it is focused on whether the transaction process gives consumers enough understandable information before they spend.

From voluntary principles to action

The CPC Network published its Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies in March 2025. Those principles were developed after extensive conversations with game studios and publishers and were meant to encourage transparency and fairness without immediately moving to this stage of public action.

For useful background on this topic, read Warlock: Dungeons & Dragons Won't Chase Baldur's Gate 3's Branching Story Model.

However, the network concluded that a substantial number of companies had not made meaningful adjustments following either the public guidance or years of discussions with the industry. That finding has now led to direct action involving the European Commission and consumer-protection authorities.

The broad aim is straightforward: people should know the real monetary cost of an in-game item, understand the conditions attached to a purchase, and not be pressured into buying more virtual currency than they need. The Commission has also put particular emphasis on the protection of children and other vulnerable consumers, who may be less equipped to assess complicated pricing structures or urgent purchase prompts.

"Roughly half of Europeans play video games, making gaming a major part of our digital economy and everyday lives," Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection Michael McGrath said. "With that reach comes responsibility. The industry must ensure that its games do not expose players -- especially children -- to harmful or unfair practices."

The seven areas under scrutiny

The Commission has outlined seven central consumer-protection expectations for the games covered by its action. Together, they address how prices are communicated, how purchases are structured and how companies treat customers after money has changed hands.

• Clear and transparent pricing: Consumers should be able to understand what they are paying, rather than needing to estimate value through unclear conversion rates.
• No obscured costs: Systems should not hide the real expense of an item behind layers of virtual currency or confusing exchanges.
• No forced excess purchases: Players should not be pushed to buy unwanted amounts of premium currency simply to obtain a particular item or continue enjoying a game.
• Information before purchase: The relevant details should be provided clearly before a transaction is completed.
• Respect for withdrawal rights: Consumers should be able to withdraw from contracts within a two-week period, including in circumstances involving unused virtual currency.
• Fair, understandable terms: Purchase conditions and related rules should be written in language that consumers can reasonably follow.
• Protection for vulnerable consumers: Game businesses are expected to account for children and others who may face heightened risks from manipulative or unclear commercial practices.

One of the most consequential points is the expectation that games show the real-world price of items available through virtual currencies. A skin, character bundle or other add-on may be listed in a game as costing a certain number of tokens, but the Commission wants players to be able to see what that amount represents in euros or another applicable real currency.

This would address a familiar situation in which a store sells currency in preset packs, while the desired item costs an amount that does not neatly match any available pack. The player can be left buying a larger bundle than necessary and retaining a small balance that may encourage another purchase later. The Commission's principles indicate that players should not be made to feel compelled to acquire excessive quantities of currency just to progress or get full enjoyment from a game.

Why multiple currencies are a key issue

The announcement also takes aim at transaction designs involving several exchange steps. For example, a consumer might use real money to buy one form of currency, turn that into another currency through an in-game system, and then spend the second currency on an item. Even if each step is technically displayed, the overall process can make it harder to identify the actual price.

The Commission's position is that games should not require customers to navigate such currency exchanges or multiple-currency arrangements when they obscure costs. This does not necessarily mean every game currency will disappear. Virtual currencies remain a common design and commercial tool across free-to-play and premium games. But companies are being pressed to ensure those systems do not prevent players from making informed choices.

The scope of the named businesses illustrates how widely these concerns can apply. Activision Blizzard UK represents a major publisher with large-scale online game operations. Mojang is responsible for Minecraft, a game played by audiences that include many younger users. Riot Games operates some of the industry's most prominent competitive online titles, while Supercell is one of the biggest names in mobile gaming. Ubisoft, meanwhile, has a broad catalogue spanning major console and PC releases as well as ongoing live-service experiences.

These companies serve different genres, business models and platforms, but the EU's message is that consumer rights should be consistent regardless of whether a player is using a phone, PC, PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo system.

Children and spending pressure

Children are a prominent focus of the action. The CPC Network stated that some video games directly encourage children to make purchases despite an explicit prohibition under EU consumer-protection law. The concern extends beyond whether a child can technically make a transaction. It also includes the framing and prompts surrounding an offer: language that creates urgency, designs that suggest spending is necessary, and systems that make the value of money difficult to grasp can all have a stronger effect on young players.

For families, clearer real-world prices and understandable purchase terms could make spending decisions easier to monitor. For developers and publishers, the action signals that accessible interface design cannot be separated from consumer law when that interface is also a storefront.

It is also worth noting what the announcement does and does not establish. It does not provide a list of specific games that must immediately remove their currencies, nor does it announce a blanket prohibition on optional in-game purchases. The focus is on compliance with existing EU consumer protections and the CPC Network's principles. How each company responds, and whether national authorities determine that further measures are needed, will be the next important question.

Part of a wider EU push on games

This development arrives amid a broader period of European attention on online safety and digital services used by minors. Documents concerning a proposed EU Kids Act have also circulated, with the proposal potentially requiring age verification for certain online services, including multiplayer games considered risky to minors.

That proposal is separate from the virtual-currency action, but both developments reflect the same larger policy direction. European regulators are examining not only what games contain, but also how their social features, spending systems and account structures affect consumers. For an industry increasingly built around regular updates, digital storefronts and recurring engagement, that scrutiny could reshape the presentation of transactions as much as the transactions themselves.

McGrath said national authorities, supported by the Commission, would ensure the rules are enforced. The immediate pressure is therefore on the nine companies to demonstrate that their in-game currencies, prices, refund-related processes and customer communications meet the expected standard.

For players, the practical outcome could be more direct price displays, fewer confusing conversions and clearer information at checkout. For publishers, it is another sign that virtual economies can no longer be treated as purely internal game design. In the eyes of European consumer authorities, they are retail systems--and the rules that apply to retail must apply there too.