EU Opens In-Game Currency Cases Against Nine Game Companies, With Activision in a Separate File

What the CPC Network announced

On September 30, 2026, the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network announced EU-level coordinated actions against nine video game companies over in-game virtual currencies. The Network is made up of national consumer authorities and is coordinated by the European Commission. Its actions are requests for the companies to align their practices with EU consumer law. They are not penalties, and no fines were announced. The Commission says that failure to address the concerns raised by the Network may lead to enforcement measures by national authorities.

The same day, the Network adopted a Joint Statement on stronger consumer protection in video games across the EU single market. Coverage framed the story as the EU taking action against Activision, Riot and Ubisoft. One report, published by Kotaku on October 11, 2026, said the effort was spearheaded by the Italian Competition Authority. The official paperwork draws the lines differently.

The nine companies and the nine games

The Commission's press release names nine companies and, for each one, the game under scrutiny.

Two naming differences show up in the official documents. The Joint Statement writes "King.com Limited", while the Commission and Ireland's Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) both write "King.com Operations (Malta) Limited". Gardenscapes is published by PLR Worldwide Sales Limited, the company that much of the coverage calls Playrix.

The Commission says the games were chosen during a wide-scale market compliance check, on the grounds of broad reach, cross-device accessibility and varied age ratings.

Why Activision Blizzard sits in a separate case

Activision is not one of the nine. The Commission describes a parallel action with Activision Blizzard UK Limited, part of the Microsoft group, covering Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile. That file reaches past currency pricing. The Network is examining how in-game virtual currencies are sold, how personal data from players is collected, whether the games have addictive designs, the default settings for parental control, direct marketing to children, the display of pre-contractual information, and the blocking of gaming accounts.

Italy's competition authority, the AGCM, leads that action with the consumer authorities of Norway and Denmark. In a statement published in Rome on October 8, the AGCM says the coordinated action tests whether a "widespread infringement" has occurred under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, meaning conduct contrary to EU consumer protection rules that is likely to harm consumers in three or more member states. The authority had already opened national investigations into Microsoft group companies over Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty in December 2025. The AGCM describes its earlier concerns in concrete terms: in-game purchases such as cosmetic upgrades and weapon packs are often priced in platinum, globes or diamonds, and bundles, dark patterns, weak parental controls and poor support for blocked accounts make it hard for players to track what they spend.

The pricing rules the enforcers want applied

The nine actions follow the CPC Network's Key Principles on in-game virtual currencies, adopted on March 21, 2025 and led by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets and the Norwegian Consumer Authority. The Commission lists the expectations in plain language:

• pricing that shows the real-world price of the in-game items and currencies a player needs to buy
• no obscured costs created by multiple currencies or currency exchanges
• no pressure to buy more virtual currency than needed to progress in or enjoy a game
• clear information before a purchase
• information about the right to withdraw from contracts within 14 days, including for unused virtual currency
• fair and understandable terms and conditions
• safeguards for vulnerable consumers, including children

The Joint Statement says the Network found indications that a high number of game companies had made no substantive changes after the public guidance. It also gives particular attention to variable reward systems such as loot boxes where they are directed at, or made available to, children. The statement lists the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Consumer Rights Directive, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Digital Content Directive as the rules involved.

Paid random content has been part of this file since 2022, when the Commission wrote to the two main industry umbrella bodies, ISFE and the EGDF, asking them to remind their members that loot boxes and other paid random content must meet the information obligations on price and main characteristics. That letter also states that games should not be promoted as "free" unless they are free in their entirety, and that they must not contain direct exhortations to children to buy paid add-ons.

What the industry says

Video Games Europe and the European Games Developer Federation published a joint response on September 30. They say the industry has been constructive about pricing transparency for paid in-game currencies, refunds, bundles and the right of withdrawal. They reject the Network's legal classification of in-game currencies, arguing that these are not digital representations of value and are not bitcoin or cryptocurrency. Since spring 2025, they say, they have asked the Network for the legal basis of its position and have not received it, and they are ready to implement their own proposals if the legal uncertainty is resolved.

That is the industry's account, given by associations that speak for the companies involved. The Commission's documents do not answer the classification argument.

What consumer organisations say

BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, welcomed the actions and says they follow a complaint that it filed with 22 member organisations from 17 countries in September 2024. Agustín Reyna, BEUC's Director General, said no one should need a calculator to figure out what they are spending in a game, and called the decision a first step that should be followed by the EU's Digital Fairness Act. BEUC is a consumer group, not an enforcement body, so its 2024 complaint and the Network's actions are separate events, even though BEUC connects them.

What happens next

The Commission says the Network has started a dialogue with each of the nine companies. The Joint Statement says the Network will keep taking joint enforcement actions where appropriate and calls on the whole sector to review its practices. No deadlines, no findings against a named company and no penalties have been published, so no change to any particular game is guaranteed yet. The companies get to respond before national authorities decide whether to go further.

One counting difference is left open in the documents. The press release counts nine companies in the September 30 actions and treats the Activision Blizzard file separately, while the Joint Statement refers to eleven coordinated actions naming ten companies. Nothing published breaks the difference down. Counting the two Activision games as two actions would produce eleven, but the Commission does not say that, and the AGCM counts ten companies in total. Ireland's CCPC, which took part, also describes nine companies plus separate engagement with Activision Blizzard UK. The scope of the market check, the lead authority for each of the nine actions and any timetable remain unpublished. The companies' individual responses remain unconfirmed.