The EU Went After Nine Game Companies — and Told Them to Price Virtual Currency in Real Money
Gacha and virtual currency just hit the EU's compliance wall. Led by Ireland's consumer regulator, the action covers seven principles: transparent pricing, hidden costs, pressure to over-buy, the 14-day right of withdrawal, and protection for children. Industry trade bodies pushed back the same day, arguing that in-game currency is not a "digital representation of value." It could be a transparency watershed for free-to-play — but for now it is enforcement, not a ruling.
The event: seven principles, nine companies, one coordinated action
On September 30, 2026, the EU's Consumer Protection Cooperation Network announced coordinated actions against nine video game companies, checking them against the EU's Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies. Ireland's Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) is leading the work, and the nine companies own some of the most profitable products on the planet.
Who was named
The list: Hunt: Showdown 1896 (Crytek), Forge of Empires (InnoGames), Candy Crush Saga (King), Minecraft and Mech Arena (Mojang), Gardenscapes (Plarium), PLR Worldwide Sales, Valorant (Riot Games), Clash of Clans (Supercell), and For Honor (Ubisoft). Activision Blizzard UK faces a parallel action over Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.
The seven principles
They boil down to: clear and transparent pricing; no obscured costs; no pushing players to buy more currency than they need; clear information before purchase; respect for the 14-day right of withdrawal, including unused currency; fair and understandable terms; and protection for vulnerable users such as children.
The industry pushes back within hours
Trade bodies representing major publishers publicly rejected the framing the same day it was announced. According to MobileGamer.biz, organisations including Video Games Europe argue that in-game currency is not a "digital representation of value" in the cryptocurrency sense, and cite a European Court of Justice ruling on RuneScape's currency as support.
The core counter-argument
The bodies say they have been asking the CPC since spring 2025 for the legal basis of that classification without an answer, and have submitted a package of six commitments. Jari-Pekka Kaleva, managing director of the European Game Developer Federation, put it plainly: the fix is to make clear where the actual financial transaction happens, not to treat every in-game currency spend as a separate contract.
Why now: a dialogue that ran out of patience
This was not a surprise raid. In March 2025 the CPC Network published its Key Principles and opened a dialogue with the industry. From the CPC's perspective, many companies made no substantive changes afterwards, and some games were accused of directly urging children to buy. That pushed the network toward coordinated enforcement.
What it means for gacha games
Europe is a meaningful revenue source for gacha titles, and variable pricing, published drop rates and tiered bundles are standard practice in the genre. If real-money price tags become mandatory, the way starter bundles, first-purchase bonuses and limited-time discounts are displayed will have to be rebuilt.
Analysis: a transparency watershed for gacha monetisation?
Seen on a longer timeline, this looks like a European sample of a global regulatory trend. China required published gacha odds back in 2016, and Apple and Google police in-app purchases through store rules. The EU's twist is that it is coming straight from consumer contract law.
The Asia comparison
One expert view published by GamesIndustry.biz is worth keeping: strictly applying "every currency spend is a purchase" could bury consumers in notifications and even produce an absurd "one real transaction, two withdrawal rights" result. Correct regulatory intent does not guarantee a workable enforcement path.
The risks and the counter-argument
It is too early to conclude anything.
Three caveats
First, this is coordinated enforcement and assessment, not a finding of illegality or a fine. Second, how withdrawal rights apply to free games and virtual goods is untested, and the details are unwritten. Third, the real revenue impact depends on the final terms — and publishers may well comply with a low-pain option like clear real-money bundle pricing.
My take
I read this as a direction-setting signal rather than an immediate earthquake.
What players actually get
In the short term, players are likelier to get clearer price labels than refunds — knowing exactly what six yuan buys, whether that's 600 gems or 500 gems plus a bonus. That is good for spending decisions. We'll track the final terms and publisher responses on GameHub.
FAQ
Q1: Which companies did the EU target?
A: Nine companies are under coordinated action, including Crytek, InnoGames, King, Mojang, Plarium, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft; Activision Blizzard UK faces a separate action over Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.
Q2: Why does virtual currency need a real-money price?
A: The CPC argues players should see real-money prices when spending in-game currency, to prevent obscured costs, stacked currency conversions and pressure to over-buy.
Q3: Has anything been decided yet?
A: No. This is an enforcement and remediation phase; no illegality has been found and no fine issued. How withdrawal rights apply remains unclear. Follow the details at gghubs.com.