EU Action Targets Activision, Riot, Ubisoft and Others Over In-Game Currency Practices

European consumer-protection scrutiny of video game monetization is moving toward some of the industry's most familiar systems: virtual currencies, currency bundles, and stores where the amount a player can buy does not neatly match the price of the item they want. The European Union has announced action involving ten game companies, with the Italian Competition Authority leading the effort.

The companies named are Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium, and Playrix. The concerns go beyond the mere presence of optional purchases. They focus on how those purchases are presented, how virtual currencies are sold and converted from euros, whether design can pressure or mislead players, the adequacy of parental controls, and the help available when an account is blocked.

For players, the issue will sound immediately recognizable. A game sells a pack of currency in one amount, while an outfit, upgrade, battle pass, or other digital item costs just slightly less--or slightly more--than that amount. Buying the closest bundle can leave a small balance behind. That remaining currency may not be enough to purchase anything by itself, potentially encouraging another purchase later. It is a structure that has existed for years across free-to-play, mobile, live-service, and online games.

What the EU action is examining

In its description of the initiative, the EU highlighted in-game purchases such as cosmetic items and weapon upgrade packs that are listed in currencies other than euros, even though the transaction ultimately requires payment in euros either directly or through one or more virtual currencies. The model can make the actual cash cost of an item less obvious than a straightforward price tag.

For useful background on this topic, read Tekken 8 Shows Yujiro Hanma's Unsettling First In-Game Look.

Virtual currency is not automatically problematic simply because it exists. Many games use it as an internal economy for rewards earned through play, gifts, promotional bonuses, and paid content. The regulatory concern outlined here is the combination of systems surrounding that currency. Selling coins, points, gems, credits, or similar units in fixed bundles is one element. The EU also cited dark patterns, insufficient parental-control tools, and a lack of assistance for users whose accounts have been blocked.

Dark patterns is a broad term used for interface and design decisions that can steer people toward choices they might not otherwise make. In a game-store context, that could involve obscuring a real-money equivalent, making a purchase path much clearer than a cancellation or support path, or otherwise placing friction around informed decision-making. The announced action does not mean every listed company has been found to have committed a violation. It signals that regulators are challenging the practices and examining whether consumer-protection requirements are being met.

That distinction matters. The announcement identifies the companies and the categories of concern, but it does not establish a public final outcome for each company. Any individual findings, required changes, sanctions, or timelines would depend on the regulatory process.

The familiar problem of leftover currency

The mismatch between bundles and item prices is among gaming's oldest digital-store frustrations. A player might want an item priced at 2,999 units while the store offers 3,000-unit bundles. In that situation, the player has one unit left after checking out. On paper, the spare amount looks insignificant. Across a large audience and repeated purchases, however, the model can ensure that paid balances remain in player accounts and can make a future top-up feel more attractive.

The reverse situation can be just as frustrating. If an item costs slightly more than the nearest available bundle, players may need to buy a larger option than they initially planned. The practical effect is that the game's store, not the player, determines the increments in which money can be spent. Because virtual currencies often have changing conversion rates, bonus amounts, regional pricing differences, and multiple denominations, quickly calculating the cash value of a purchase can become difficult.

For adults making a deliberate purchase, that complexity may be an annoyance. For younger players and families, it can become a much more serious concern. Games with a wide youth audience can make the distinction between virtual units and money feel abstract, particularly when purchases are framed around colorful currencies rather than a direct euro total. That is why parental controls and clear purchase information are central to the EU's stated concerns.

These systems span an enormous range of games and devices. They can appear in competitive online titles, sandbox games, mobile releases, strategy games, shooters, and casual puzzle games. They are also not limited to one store or one hardware maker. A player may encounter similar currency structures on PC, console, handheld, and mobile platforms, though the details of payment and platform policy can vary.

Epic's V-Bucks change shows a different route

Epic has already announced a change to Fortnite's V-Bucks purchasing options that is relevant to the debate. Starting in October, players will be able to spend exact amounts of V-Bucks for particular purchases, with PlayStation identified as an exception. The shift means players can more closely match the currency they buy with the price of an item, rather than being restricted entirely to pre-set bundle sizes.

That does not eliminate every question surrounding in-game spending, but it addresses the most obvious leftover-balance problem. Exact-amount purchasing gives players a way to avoid paying for currency they do not intend to use. It also offers a practical example of the kind of store adjustment that can make virtual-currency systems easier to understand and potentially less wasteful.

PlayStation's exception is important because it illustrates that publishers do not always control every part of a game's payment flow. Platform-specific rules, technical arrangements, and storefront requirements can shape how a developer or publisher implements a currency system. Still, the broader consumer question remains the same: can players see what an item really costs and pay an amount that reasonably corresponds to that price?

A wider push against game monetization practices

The action arrives during a period of increased global attention on monetization design. Live-service games, gacha systems, and free-to-play releases are among the industry's largest earners, but their revenue models have also raised persistent consumer-protection questions. Regulators and ratings bodies have increasingly considered how random rewards, gambling-like mechanics, youth access, purchase prompts, and digital ownership affect players.

Not every concern is identical. Randomized loot systems invite one set of questions, particularly where spending is tied to chance. Virtual-currency bundles present another: price transparency and the possibility that unused balances can lead to additional spending. Account blocks create yet another problem if players lose access to purchases or have difficulty obtaining timely support. The EU's announcement puts several of these issues together rather than treating the checkout screen as an isolated feature.

That wider view is significant. A transaction is not only the instant when a player presses a purchase button. It includes the menu design that preceded it, the information available to the buyer, the safeguards that exist for parents, the way an internal currency is sold, and the support options available afterward. Consumer advocates have long argued that those surrounding systems can matter as much as the nominal price of a cosmetic item or upgrade.

Game companies, meanwhile, operate across many territories with different consumer laws, payment rules, age classifications, and platform policies. A more forceful European approach could add pressure for clearer and more consistent virtual-currency practices across regions, especially for publishers that operate major titles in multiple markets. It could also encourage changes that reach beyond the specific games or stores ultimately examined in this initiative.

What players should watch for next

The immediate takeaway is not that every game using coins, points, or gems will disappear from European storefronts. Virtual currencies remain deeply embedded in modern game design, and they can serve legitimate functions in a game economy. The issue is whether those currencies are used transparently and fairly when real money enters the picture.

Players should watch for further details on the Italian Competition Authority's process, responses from the companies named, and any specific remedies that emerge. Possible changes could concern direct price information, the way currency packs are structured, protections for child accounts, or customer support for blocked accounts. The announcement itself does not settle which measures will be imposed or when.

For now, the EU action puts renewed attention on a practice many players have simply learned to tolerate: buying more digital currency than an intended item costs and carrying the remainder indefinitely. What once looked like a minor quirk of online stores is now being examined as part of a broader question about fair digital marketplaces, informed spending, and the responsibilities of companies that build games for audiences of all ages.