EU takes action against 10 game companies over virtual currency and monetization

• The companies named are Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix.
• The concerns involve virtual currency, dark patterns, parental controls and support for blocked accounts.

What happened

According to the source provided, the European Union announced last week that it will take action against ten game companies. The move focuses on monetization systems in games and the use of virtual currency, which can make the price of in-game purchases less immediately visible. The source describes this as one of gaming’s oldest monetization issues, where the value in real-world currency and the value in an in-game currency do not always line up one-to-one.

The source names Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix as the companies involved. That puts the spotlight on a group of publishers and developers active across mobile games, live-service titles and free-to-play models. The source does not spell out the exact legal step the EU is taking, but the action is tied to pricing structures where players first buy virtual currency and then spend it on separate purchases.

The source also mentions dark patterns, insufficient parental controls and a lack of support when accounts are blocked. It frames the issue as a recurring problem in games that use virtual currency and bundles. In the supplied video description, international regulators are also said to be developing new ways to curb what they see as misleading monetization practices, with the EU last week announcing action against ten specific companies, including Activision, Riot and Ubisoft.

The available information does not make clear whether the EU is opening a formal investigation, a enforcement procedure or another regulatory step. It is also not confirmed whether all ten companies fall under exactly the same legal basis. What is clear is that the source links the issue to broader concerns about how in-game purchases are presented and paid for.

Background

The source places the issue in the context of live-service, gacha and freemium games, where virtual currency is often used to bundle purchases. According to the source, these systems make the price in real-world currency less direct than the price in an in-game currency. That can make it harder for players to judge the true cost of a purchase, especially when buying something requires an extra step through virtual currency.

The ten named companies represent major publishers and mobile or live-service players. The source does not provide a product-by-product list and does not confirm which titles or monetization systems are being examined at each company. Still, the names point to a broad cross-section of the games industry, including major PC and console publishers as well as mobile-focused companies. Their inclusion in one announcement suggests the EU is targeting a wider monetization pattern rather than a single game.

The source also mentions dark patterns, a term used for design elements that steer users toward a particular choice. In this context, that refers to monetization and store structures that make pricing or the purchase flow less transparent. Parental controls are also mentioned, suggesting the concerns are not only about price information but also about protecting younger players and how purchases are managed within accounts.

Another point raised is support for blocked accounts. According to the source, that is part of the broader criticism of how some game companies organize their services and payment structures. The available source material does not mention separate sanctions, fines or deadlines, and it does not provide an overview of earlier EU steps against these companies. It does, however, show that the debate over virtual currency and bundles is back on the agenda for European regulators.

The supplied video description reinforces that picture by referring to live-service, gacha and freemium games as major business models in the sector. It also notes that titles such as Fortnite and Roblox are popular with children, which helps explain the focus on regulating monetization practices. The video itself does not add further legal detail in the provided context, but it does confirm that the discussion extends beyond this single report.