EU In-Game Currency Crackdown Hits Activision, Riot, Ubisoft

An EU in-game currency crackdown has placed ten of gaming’s biggest publishers, including Activision Blizzard, Riot Games and Ubisoft, under formal scrutiny over premium currencies that never quite add up to the price of the item players actually want. The Italian Competition Authority is leading the coordinated effort, which also names Mojang, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix as targets of the investigation.

The complaint focuses on a monetisation trick as old as downloadable content itself. Players buy a block of virtual coins, gems or points, only to find the skin, weapon pack or upgrade they want costs slightly more or less than what they purchased. The leftover balance sits unspent, nudging players to top up again rather than walk away with a few cents still on the table.

What the EU in-game currency crackdown is actually targeting

According to the regulator, in-game purchases such as cosmetic upgrades and weapon packs are often priced in currencies other than euros, yet they ultimately involve a real-money transaction, whether that payment happens directly or indirectly through one or more layers of virtual currency. The authority argues this structure, combined with currency bundles, dark patterns, weak parental controls and poor support when accounts are locked, adds up to a pattern that disadvantages consumers.

That combination matters more than any single element on its own. Selling currency in fixed bundles rather than exact amounts is one thing; pairing it with confusing refund paths and limited account recovery support is what has drawn sustained regulatory attention across the European Union this year.

Which publishers are named

The ten companies caught up in the action span console blockbusters, mobile gacha titles and live-service staples. Several, including Mojang and King, now sit under larger corporate umbrellas following years of industry consolidation.

The regulator specifically singled out Call of Duty as an example of a franchise that has stuck with mismatched currency pricing long after many rivals moved away from it. Activision Blizzard and King are now part of Microsoft’s games division, a detail reflected in the AGCM’s framing of the case as action “in relation to Microsoft group video games” in its official press release.

Some publishers have already moved, others haven’t

Notably absent from the list is Epic Games, which has already gotten ahead of regulators on this particular issue. Starting this month, Fortnite players can spend exact amounts of V-Bucks on specific items rather than being forced to buy currency in uneven blocks, though that fix currently stops short of PlayStation, where Sony’s own payment rules still apply.

That carve-out highlights how uneven the fix has been across the industry. Some companies redesigned their currency systems years ago once the backlash over “nearly enough” bundles became impossible to ignore. Others, including several named in this action, kept the old model in place because it reliably nudges players toward topping up their balance rather than leaving spare change unused.

Part of a much bigger regulatory wave

This case does not exist in isolation. Regulators and courts around the world have spent the past year taking a harder look at monetisation design across gaming, from age-rating reviews of gambling-adjacent mechanics in family-friendly titles to court rulings over digital ownership rights when accounts are compromised or hacked. A separate EU push on age verification for young gamers reflects the same broader appetite for oversight, even though it tackles a different side of player protection.

Taken together, these actions suggest the era of games treating monetisation design as entirely self-regulated territory is ending, at least within the EU. Whether that translates into binding fines, mandated currency redesigns, or voluntary changes similar to Epic’s V-Bucks update remains to be seen, since the Italian Competition Authority’s announcement marks the start of a formal process rather than a final ruling.

What it means for players

For now, nothing changes immediately for players in any of the ten companies’ games. Investigations of this kind typically take months, and outcomes can range from binding commitments to redesign currency systems through to financial penalties, depending on how each company responds to the regulator’s findings.

Australian players won’t be covered directly by an EU ruling, since jurisdiction stops at the bloc’s borders. In practice, though, major publishers tend to roll out currency and compliance changes globally rather than build separate systems per region, so any redesign forced in Europe would likely show up in local storefronts too.

Frequently asked questions

Which gaming companies are named in the EU investigation?

The Italian Competition Authority’s coordinated EU action names Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix.

Why are in-game currencies considered a problem?

Regulators argue that selling currency in fixed bundles that don’t match item prices, combined with dark patterns and weak account support, effectively obscures the real-money cost of purchases and nudges players into spending more than intended.

Has any company already fixed this issue?

Epic Games has already updated Fortnite so players can spend exact amounts of V-Bucks on specific items, though that change does not yet extend to PlayStation.

Will this affect players outside the EU, including in Australia?

Not directly, since the action is limited to EU jurisdiction. However, publishers often apply monetisation changes globally rather than maintain separate systems per region, so Australian players could see similar updates down the line.