European Consumer Groups Push for Tighter Regulation on In-Game Currencies

European consumer protection organisations are calling for more robust regulatory action against the video game industry’s handling of in-game currencies.

A coalition, led by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and comprising 22 member groups from 17 countries, formally submitted a complaint to the European Commission on 12 September. They are urging stronger enforcement from both the European Commission and the European Network of Consumer Authorities (CPC-Network) in addressing how video game companies encourage consumer spending through in-game digital currencies.

This issue has gained prominence, particularly as these currencies are increasingly used for in-game purchases, a practice noted to be particularly prevalent in free-to-play games and games frequently accessed by children. The report emphasises that this model is generating substantial revenues for the gaming industry.

Related reading："Black Myth: Wukong" First Investor Won’t Invest in Web3, Believing Game Itself Should Be the Focus

Legal Ambiguity of Digital Currencies in Gaming

At the core of the complaint is the ambiguous nature of in-game currencies, which function as both digital content and as a form of payment. This dual role has led to a level of legal uncertainty across the European Union.

“Following our analysis, we have reasons to believe that consumers fall prey to many deceptive practices when buying premium in-game currencies in video games,” the BEUC highlighted in its report.

Overview of the unit price of some in-game currencies. Source: BEUC

The organisation argues that consumer rights should extend to purchases made using in-game currencies. It disputes claims made by some within the industry, pointing to research suggesting that many consumers find these digital currencies to be both confusing and, at times, misleading.

Potential EU Law Violations in Pricing Practices

Another key issue raised by BEUC and its partners is how game companies often present prices exclusively in virtual currencies. This lack of transparency, where players cannot easily convert these amounts into real money, may constitute a violation of EU consumer protection laws. This pricing model, often used in free-to-play games, can complicate consumers’ ability to make informed purchasing decisions.

Although the report stops short of directly mentioning cryptocurrencies, there are evident similarities with Web3 games, where tokens operate as an in-game purchasing tool.

Economic Behaviour and The “Pain-of-Paying” Effect

BEUC further argues that in-game currencies influence players’ economic behaviour by making real-world prices appear less tangible. This method reduces the “pain-of-paying” effect, leading players to spend more than they might otherwise.

Prominent gaming companies named in the report include Activision Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Epic Games, Mojang Studios, Roblox Corporation, Supercell, and Ubisoft. A particularly notable example is Epic Games’ popular title Fortnite, which reportedly generates as much as $2 million daily from in-game purchases. Between 2020 and 2023, the average spending by children on in-game purchases rose by 18%, from nearly $36 to $43 per month.

Related reading：TON Becomes Telegram Game W-Coin’s Preferred Blockchain After Players Reject Ethereum and Solana

Cryptocurrency Integration in Gaming

Separately, on 12 September, CCP Games, developers of Eve Online, announced their upcoming title Eve Frontier, a massively multiplayer online survival game. This game will allow players to build their own in-game economies using cryptocurrencies, adding a new dimension to the ongoing debate about digital currency use in gaming.

Call for Stricter Guidelines

The report concludes by calling for stricter regulatory enforcement and clearer guidelines from relevant authorities to address these evolving practices in the gaming industry.

While consumer groups continue to voice their concerns, it is evident that the increasing integration of in-game currencies is pushing the boundaries of consumer rights protections, and the current legal framework may be struggling to keep up.