Consumer Protection Network Takes Action Against Nine Gaming Companies Over In-Game Currency Practices

The Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network launched coordinated actions on September 30, 2026, against nine video games companies over their in-game virtual currency and micro-transaction practices. The targeted companies and titles include 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), Valorant (Riot Games Limited), Clash of Clans (Supercell Oy), and For Honor (Ubisoft EMEA SAS). The CPC Network is also conducting a separate action with Activision Blizzard UK Limited regarding Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.

The enforcement action centers on enforcing the European Union's Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies. The CPC Network's primary concern is that when players purchase items using in-game currency, prices should also be displayed in real-world currency equivalents. More broadly, the network contends that consumer protection laws should apply to in-game purchases as if real money were being spent directly.

This action follows what the CPC Network describes as an unsuccessful dialogue with the video games industry in 2025. According to the network, industry stakeholders did not view the exchange as a genuine dialogue and the discussions failed to produce satisfactory results from a consumer protection standpoint.

The approach raises complex legal and practical questions. In-game currency values can be difficult to establish in real-world terms, particularly when prices vary based on bundle sizes or when the currency can be earned through gameplay rather than purchased. Strictly applying consumer protection law to every in-game transaction could result in overwhelming notification requirements and would potentially grant players a right of withdrawal both when purchasing and when spending in-game currency, creating a double withdrawal right from a single financial transaction.

Jari-Pekka Kaleva, managing director of the European Game Developer Federation, commented on the enforcement action: "It is unfortunate that the CPC network was not ready to develop further industry proposals that keep it clear and transparent for both businesses and players where the actual financial transaction happens and avoid any risk of misleading consumers on the nature of in-game currencies as in-game content."

From a legal standpoint, the CPC Network bases its enforcement on EU prohibitions against misleading commercial practices and strict rules regarding consumer contracts. The network defines a consumer contract as one in which a consumer spends money or a digital representation of value. The gaming industry has traditionally argued that spending in-game currency to purchase items constitutes a game mechanic rather than a contractual transaction. Additionally, the characterization of in-game currency as a "digital representation of value" has not been established in existing EU case law, and the underlying legislation the CPC Network references was designed for cryptocurrencies rather than in-game virtual currencies.

There appears to be some inconsistency within EU regulatory efforts. Less than two weeks before the CPC Network's enforcement action, the EU Commission presented the draft EU KIDS Act, which addresses transparency in in-game currency purchases in its recitals but does not regulate the practice in its main text, even for children. The Commission has also announced a draft Digital Fairness Act for November that is expected to address in-game monetisation again. Meanwhile, the Commission supports the CPC Network's coordinated action, suggesting regulations already exist for adults.

In-game monetisation through micro-transactions is facing scrutiny from multiple regulatory and enforcement avenues. The gaming industry has not been entirely passive in addressing concerns. PEGI and USK, the European age-rating systems, already evaluate monetisation mechanisms and parental controls when assigning ratings to games.