The European Union has put nine of gaming’s biggest names on notice over the way virtual currencies, child protections and account rules are presented to players. Minecraft, Valorant, Candy Crush Saga and Clash of Clans are among the games covered — and the most immediate change could be something wonderfully ordinary: showing people what an item actually costs in real money.
On 30 September, the European Commission and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network announced a coordinated action involving Crytek, InnoGames, King, Mojang, Plarium, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft. The named games also include Forge of Empires, For Honor, Gardenscapes, Hunt: Showdown 1896 and Mech Arena.
This is an enforcement dialogue, not a finding that every company broke the law. The Commission’s official notice says authorities have raised concerns and asked the companies to respond. National regulators may take further action if the issues are not resolved.
Why Minecraft and Valorant are in the same EU action
The nine games have very different audiences and business models, but regulators see common consumer problems. The first is price clarity. When a game sells gems, coins or points in bundles, the player has to convert the amount in their head before understanding the real cost of a skin or upgrade. Leftover currency can also encourage another purchase.
The authorities also point to pressure tactics, design patterns the authorities describe as potentially addictive, default settings affecting children, collection of personal data, incomplete information before purchase and terms that can allow an account to be blocked unilaterally. Consumer group BEUC, which filed complaints about in-game currencies in 2024, welcomed the new action and argued that younger players need clearer protection.
The Belgian economy ministry has also published details of its role, including a specific investigation concerning Clash of Clans. That gives the announcement more weight than a general policy speech: national authorities are examining how these systems operate in real products.
Real-world prices would change the feel of a purchase
A 1,200-coin bundle feels abstract. “$14.95” does not. Requiring an easily visible cash equivalent would remove a layer of friction between desire and arithmetic. It would not eliminate virtual currencies, but it could make it harder for a store to turn a simple price into a small maths problem.
That question matters well beyond mobile games. We recently saw a Sony patent explore purchases from a controller, while reported changes to Xbox Game Pass have kept value and access at the centre of gaming discussion. Platform holders keep making spending more seamless; regulators are asking whether the price remains just as visible.
The cash equivalent is only one part of the case, yet it is the easiest for players to test. A parent can compare $8.99 with another purchase immediately; 950 crystals demand knowledge of bundle sizes, bonus amounts and leftovers. Clearer display would also make sales easier to judge. A 20 per cent discount means more when the starting price is visible in dollars and cents. That transparency could pressure publishers to compete on value while leaving cosmetic shops and optional purchases intact.
What happens next
The companies now have the chance to answer the concerns and propose remedies. The Commission says the network will assess those replies and may enter further dialogue. A separate 2026 action involving Microsoft and Activision Blizzard already covers Call of Duty: Mobile and Diablo Immortal, showing that this scrutiny extends across publishers and genres.
Players should resist the easy leap from “named in an action” to “found guilty.” That distinction matters, just as it did when Forza moderation rumours outran the available evidence. Still, the direction is clear. Europe’s consumer authorities want game stores to behave more like stores — with understandable prices, fair terms and extra care when children are involved.
The conversation
Comments are closed.