adminIn-game currency and microtransactions are facing increased scrutiny in the European Union. On 30 September 2026, the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network announced coordinated actions involving nine video game companies, seeking to enforce the EU’s Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies. The measures raise questions about how prices, purchases and consumer rights should work when players spend virtual currency.
Image credit: Supercell
What the CPC Network’s in-game currency actions cover
The coordinated actions concern Hunt: Showdown 1896 (Crytek GmbH), Forge of Empires (InnoGames GmbH), Candy Crush Saga (King.com Operations Malta Limited), Minecraft and Mech Arena (Mojang AB), Gardenscapes (Plarium Europe S.à.r.l.), PLR Worldwide Sales Limited, Valorant (Riot Games Limited), Clash of Clans (Supercell Oy), and For Honor (Ubisoft EMEA SAS).
Separately, the CPC Network is working with Activision Blizzard UK Limited on compliance with EU consumer law in Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile. This is a parallel action, rather than one of the nine company cases listed above.
The central concern is monetisation through virtual currencies and microtransactions. In 2025, the CPC Network began a dialogue with the video game industry about applying its Key Principles. The Network says the discussions did not produce satisfactory results. Some industry stakeholders, however, questioned whether the process amounted to a genuine dialogue.
Why real-world prices are a point of disagreement
The CPC Network’s position is that players should be able to see prices in real-world currency, including when they make a purchase using in-game currency. It also argues that consumer protection rules should apply to these purchases as they would to spending real money.
Applying that principle can be complicated. A virtual currency’s real-world price may depend on the bundle a player buys, and some currency may be earned through gameplay rather than purchased. In those cases, working out a clear monetary equivalent is not always straightforward.
There may also be practical consequences if every use of virtual currency is treated as a separate consumer transaction. The article notes that this could mean frequent notices, such as an email for every purchase. It could also create a potential double right of withdrawal: one when a player buys the currency and another when they spend it, despite there being only one direct payment.
Practical point for players: Check whether a game displays the cost of currency bundles and the amount of currency needed for an item before confirming a purchase. Clear price information makes it easier to understand what is being spent.
Legal questions behind virtual purchases
EU law prohibits misleading commercial practices, and the article observes that these rules may be relevant to aggressive monetisation. However, it argues that existing law does not explicitly require every virtual item to have a price shown in real-world currency. The CPC Network also relies on rules governing consumer contracts.
“While the CPC Network asserts it is applying existing laws, it appears to be extending them, potentially beyond permissible limits.”
One point of debate is whether spending in-game currency—for example, using game gold to obtain a sword—should count as entering a consumer contract or simply be treated as an in-game activity. The article also questions whether in-game currency qualifies as a “digital representation of value” under the relevant rules. It notes that the underlying EU legislation referred to cryptocurrencies, while the application of that concept to in-game currency has not been supported by existing case law.
The European Game Developer Federation’s managing director, Jari-Pekka Kaleva, said it was unfortunate that the CPC Network did not develop further industry proposals that would clarify where the actual financial transaction takes place and help prevent confusion about virtual currency as in-game content.
How wider EU initiatives may affect games
The coordinated action is taking place alongside other EU policy work. Less than two weeks before the CPC Network announcement, the European Commission presented the draft EU KIDS Act. Its recitals discuss transparency for in-game currency purchases, but the main text does not regulate the issue, including for children. The Commission has also announced a draft Digital Fairness Act for November, which is expected to address the topic again.
This creates an apparent tension: the CPC Network’s action applies consumer-law principles to current practices, while other initiatives are still considering how those principles should be set out in legislation. The article questions whether the coordinated approach is consistent with the Commission’s other work.
Game monetisation is also subject to existing rating and parental-control measures. PEGI and USK already take monetisation mechanisms and parental controls into account when rating games. For families, reviewing a game’s rating and available spending controls can be a useful step before children play or make purchases.
What the in-game currency debate means next
The outcome of the CPC actions could influence how companies present virtual currency prices and structure purchases, while further EU initiatives may shape the rules in the longer term. The legal questions remain contested, particularly around when spending virtual currency becomes a consumer transaction. For players and developers alike, clear explanations of costs and purchase terms will remain central to the in-game currency debate.
Dr Andreas Lober is a partner with ADVANT Beiten and advises leading games companies, including on youth protection and consumer law.
