On 1 October 2026, the EU's Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, coordinated by the European Commission and joined by national authorities including the Netherlands' ACM (which led the earlier industry talks) and Ireland's CCPC, opened action against nine game companies over how they price and sell in-game virtual currencies. According to Silicon Republic, the targets include King, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Supercell, Crytek, InnoGames, Plarium Europe and PLR Worldwide Sales. Activision Blizzard faces separate scrutiny. The issues are opaque pricing, pressure to buy, 14-day cancellation rights and protections for children.
The strongest case for the crackdown
The case for action is serious and should be stated fairly. Virtual currencies put a layer between the player and the euro price. A player buys 500 gems, and an item costs 80 of them. Once the real-money cost is hidden behind a token, it becomes hard to compare prices or to notice how much has been spent. Children are the most exposed group, and a bundle that leaves a leftover balance nudges players to top up again. Consumer authorities are right to ask whether these designs meet the transparency duties that apply to every other seller in the single market.
The process also was not heavy-handed. The CPC Network published its Key Principles on In-Game Virtual Currencies in March 2025, led by the Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets and the Norwegian Consumer Authority. The Commission then hosted a stakeholder workshop with game companies and federations on 3 June 2025. According to Silicon Republic, the enforcement step came only after those talks with industry groups failed to deliver better transparency.
What the principles actually require
The Key Principles do not create a new regime. As the Commission summarises them, they set out minimum requirements that already apply under EU consumer law:
- clear and transparent pricing and pre-contractual information;
- no practices that hide the cost of in-game content or oblige consumers to buy virtual currency;
- respect for consumers' right of withdrawal;
- respect for consumer vulnerabilities, in particular children.
The 14-day cancellation point matches the standard withdrawal period for distance purchases. The CPC Network is therefore not inventing a gaming-specific duty. It is telling firms that a digital token does not exempt a sale from rules that already cover online shopping.
That is why this action is easier to defend than most EU digital initiatives. The companies were told the standard in March 2025. They were invited to discuss it with regulators in June 2025. PocketGamer.biz reports that the network ran a compliance check on 11 games, including Candy Crush Saga, Minecraft and Valorant, and warned that failure to address its concerns could lead to enforcement by national authorities. It did not specify a deadline.
Where proportionality matters
A pro-innovation reading still has to flag the risks. First, the enforcement is decentralised. Each national authority applies the CPC position under its own procedures, so the same pricing screen could be judged differently in Dublin and in Warsaw. Companies serving 27 markets need a single clear test, such as a requirement to display the euro-equivalent price beside every currency bundle and every in-game item. A vague standard of not being misleading would not give them one.
Second, regulators should keep manipulation separate from monetisation. Free-to-play games exist because a minority of players pay for cosmetics and conveniences, which lets everyone else play at no cost. Virtual currencies are not inherently deceptive, and many players like the flexibility. A rule aimed at hidden costs and children is proportionate. A rule that treats every in-game purchase as suspect would shrink the free-to-play model that European studios such as Supercell, InnoGames and Crytek depend on.
Third, child protection should rest on evidence about specific tactics. The CPC Network has already acted against these before. In March 2025, Norway's Consumer Authority reported that the Network required Star Stable Entertainment to address direct appeals to children in advertisements, time-limited purchase pressure, unclear virtual currency costs and undisclosed influencer marketing to minors. Those are concrete, checkable practices. Enforcement that targets them protects children without banning categories of game design.
What to watch
The enforcement should be judged by three tests. Does it produce a common, published checklist for pricing display, so firms can comply once for the whole EU? Does it spare compliant games from cumulative national investigations? And do the remedies reach children's spending, rather than only changes to menus and terms of service?
The Activision Blizzard case runs separately and, according to Silicon Republic, concerns Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty, including personal data collection, addictive design, parental controls and account blocking. Those are different legal questions from currency pricing, and they should be kept apart. Mixing 'addictive design', which lacks a settled legal definition, with clear transparency duties would weaken the strongest part of the case.
The CPC Network has chosen the better route. It used existing law, gave the industry a year to adapt and began enforcement only after talks stalled. If it keeps to specific, verifiable duties, such as showing real prices, honouring withdrawal rights and not targeting children, it can improve consumer outcomes without a new regulatory layer. If it drifts toward open-ended judgments about game design, it will create uncertainty for the European studios that the single market is meant to help.