On 30 September 2026, the Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and fellow members of the EU Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network opened coordinated cases against nine game companies: Crytek, InnoGames, King.com, Mojang, Plarium, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft EMEA. Separately, ACM recommends that upcoming EU consumer-law reform ban loot boxes and virtual currencies in games played by minors. The first part of this package is defensible. The second is not, at least not in the form recommended.
The strongest case for the regulators
The regulators' argument is simple and has real force. ACM's announcement says costs shown in diamonds, coins or gems hide what players are really spending. It also says currencies sold only in fixed bundles leave leftover balances that nudge players to buy again. ACM board member Martijn Ridderbos put it plainly: "If you spend in-game currency, you spend real-world money."
This is not a new theory sprung on industry. The CPC Network adopted its non-binding Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies in March 2025, prepared under the lead of ACM and the Norwegian Consumer Authority. They call for clear pricing, no hidden costs, no forced purchases, respect for withdrawal rights and attention to children's vulnerabilities. The Commission then hosted stakeholder talks in June 2025. According to Mobilegamer.biz's account of the CPC statement, the network found that "a high number of video game companies" had made no substantive changes since. If a regulator publishes guidance, talks for over a year, and sees no movement, formal cases are the normal next step.
Where enforcement is on solid ground
Price transparency is the cheapest consumer protection there is. Showing a euro equivalent next to a gem bundle does not change what a game is, how it plays, or who can build one. It costs a UI line. EU consumer law already requires clear price information, and the Key Principles apply existing rules rather than inventing new ones. Enforcing existing law case by case, with each company able to respond, is the proportionate path. It is also better than prescriptive design mandates written before anyone knows what works.
The industry's reply is worth noting too. Video Games Europe and the European Game Developers Federation responded the same day. They dispute the legal reasoning that treats in-game currency as a financial-style "digital representation of value", citing a Court of Justice ruling on RuneScape, and say they have asked for the legal basis since spring 2025 without an answer. They also offered six commitments, including clearer real-money pricing and 48-hour refunds for unused bundles, though conditioned on legal clarity. The conditionality is irritating. But the unanswered question is fair: regulators enforcing a theory should be able to state it. Pricing transparency does not need that theory, because the existing price-information rules already support it.
Where the minors ban goes wrong
ACM's recommendation is broader. It wants EU lawmakers to ban loot boxes and virtual currencies in games played by minors, and the Commission is expected to carry consumer-law updates forward through the Digital Fairness Act, per reporting on the CPC announcement. Three problems follow.
First, the category is too wide. "Virtual currency" covers a casino-style gem economy and a cosmetic-only skin store in a sandbox game alike. A ban keyed to the mere presence of a currency treats them identically, though the harm profiles differ enormously. Loot boxes, which pair randomised payouts with spending, have a much stronger case for targeted limits than a transparent currency that buys known items.
Second, "games played by minors" is nearly every popular game. Minecraft, Clash of Clans and Candy Crush are all among the titles the authorities named for further assessment. A rule that applies wherever minors might be present pushes developers toward one of two outcomes. They either strip monetisation from mainstream titles, shrinking the free-to-play model that funds the games, or they introduce mandatory age verification. Age checks bring their own privacy and speech costs for everyone, adults included.
Third, a ban removes the option of better design. Spending caps, parental approval for purchases, default-off purchasing, and real-money price display all reduce harm while keeping legitimate products available. These are measures a regulator can verify and test. A prohibition is a one-way door, and the evidence base for it has not been published in the ACM announcement.
What a proportionate package looks like
- Enforce price transparency now. Real-money display, no forced leftover balances, and the 14-day withdrawal right the Key Principles describe, including for unused currency, are existing obligations. Apply them.
- Target randomised paid rewards. If loot boxes get special treatment, define them by mechanism, meaning paid randomisation, rather than by whole game categories.
- Require defaults for children. Purchase locks, spending limits and parental controls are verifiable and less restrictive than prohibition.
- Answer the legal question. Regulators should publish the legal basis for classifying in-game currency, as industry has requested, so enforcement rests on stated reasoning.
ACM also noted that existing cases involving Activision Blizzard/Microsoft (Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile) and Star Stable continue alongside the new ones. That suggests the toolkit already works: authorities can open cases, test practices, and require changes. The Digital Fairness Act debate should start from what those cases show, not from a prior commitment to prohibition.
The nine investigations are a reasonable use of existing consumer law against practices regulators warned about 18 months ago. The ban on virtual currency for minors is a different kind of proposal. It needs evidence, a narrow definition, and an assessment of what age-gating would cost, before it becomes law.