EU Regulators Target 11 Games Over Virtual Currency Practices, Including Minecraft and Candy Crush

Eleven coordinated actions have opened against ten games companies over in-game currency sales, the European Commission said Wednesday. The move follows a March 2025 set of principles that now apply to the industry, and it targets the companies themselves rather than the platforms they sit on.

The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, coordinated by the Commission, named the firms in a joint statement. They are Activision Blizzard UK, Crytek, InnoGames, King.com, Mojang, Plarium Europe, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft EMEA.

Companies Named

The list of games caught up in the actions reads like a who’s who of the mobile and PC gaming world. Diablo Immortal, Call of Duty Mobile and Hunt: Showdown 1896 appear alongside Forge of Empires, Candy Crush Saga, Minecraft, Mech Arena, Gardenscapes, Valorant, Clash of Clans and For Honor.

The crackdown applies to currencies bought with real money inside closed game economies. That means dollars spent on gems, keys or other digital goods, not coins earned by playing. Crypto is carved out entirely: a footnote excludes cryptocurrencies, virtual currencies under the EU’s fifth anti-money laundering directive, and currencies that can only be earned through play.

The March 2025 Principles

The principles require real-world prices to be shown prominently. They also give buyers a 14-day right of withdrawal, including unused currency. That means a player who spends money on a pack of gems can cancel the purchase within two weeks and get the money back.

Contract terms granting companies the unilateral right to change currency value or close accounts without contesting are flagged as unfair. The regime treats those terms as something companies must stop offering, not something players must accept.

Children are treated as always vulnerable under the new approach. High spenders — the so-called whales — are also classed as a vulnerable group, described as likely struggling with impulse control or gambling disorders. Both groups now sit under the same consumer protection umbrella.

Crypto Gets the Exemption

Crypto gets the whole exemption. The carve-out covers cryptocurrencies, virtual currencies under the EU’s fifth anti-money laundering directive, and currencies that can only be earned through play. That means a player who buys Bitcoin to spend on a game does not fall under the new regime.

The distinction matters because the regime targets real-money purchases inside closed game economies. Crypto transactions happen outside that closed loop, so they are excluded from the principles entirely.

What the Network Examines

The network examines loot boxes, dark patterns, aggressive commercial practices and exhortation of children to buy. Misleading countdown timers and unfounded scarcity claims are among the techniques at issue. The crackdown is not just about pricing transparency; it is also about how companies push players to spend.

In the Activision Blizzard case, the network examines data collection, addictive design, default parental controls and account blocking. Those four areas cover how the company collects information, how it builds systems meant to keep players hooked, how parental settings work, and how it handles account closures.

The network held workshops in June and September 2025 after opening a dialogue with industry bodies last year. That dialogue shows the process was not a sudden raid; it followed months of talks before the actions were opened.

The Self-Regulation Test

The network found indications that many companies made no substantive changes to games as a result of guidance or years of talks. Self-regulation schemes like PEGI have brought some improvements, it said, but often fail to address the core of the harmful practices.

What This Means for Players

Players who buy in-game currency with real money will see prices shown more prominently. They will also get a 14-day window to cancel purchases, including unused currency. The network’s focus on dark patterns means countdown timers and scarcity claims could disappear from the shopping screens players see.

The whale classification is the most interesting shift. Players who spend heavily are now treated as a vulnerable group, described as likely struggling with impulse control or gambling disorders. That changes how the law sees them.

The Pressure Behind the Crackdown

The network’s finding that many companies made no substantive changes to games as a result of guidance or years of talks suggests the enforcement process is continuing. The self-regulation schemes like PEGI have brought some improvements, but the crackdown now brings the full weight of the law behind the principles.

The workshops in June and September 2025 show the process was not a sudden raid; it followed months of talks before the actions were opened. The dialogue with industry bodies last year set the stage for what follows.

The regime targets real-money purchases inside closed game economies, but crypto is carved out entirely. That distinction is central to understanding what the crackdown actually covers.

Where the paper stands

The paper backs narrow rules against direct harm, such as forcing companies to disclose safety failures they hid, and is against broad rules that hand the market to the incumbents. Here, the Commission has opened eleven actions against ten games companies over in-game currency sales, and the principles now applying to the industry target the companies themselves rather than the platforms they sit on. The regime treats contract terms granting companies the unilateral right to change currency value or close accounts without contesting as something companies must stop offering, not something players must accept.

The paper’s concern with regulation protecting the biggest players and raising the cost of entry for small ones is visible here. The crackdown’s focus on real-money purchases inside closed game economies, with crypto carved out entirely, means the largest companies are the ones left facing the new rules. The exclusion of crypto transactions from the principles means the regime targets dollars spent on gems, keys or other digital goods, not coins earned by playing — a distinction that leaves the biggest firms exposed while letting smaller operations carrying crypto-based economies off the hook.

What the paper would want instead is oversight aimed at the harm itself, narrowly drawn and aimed at the actual injury rather than at the scale of the firm doing the injuring. The reader should watch for the regime’s reach expanding beyond its stated scope, and for the biggest companies using the carve-outs and exemptions to protect themselves while smaller firms bear the burden.

Source material: “Minecraft, Candy Crush Among 11 Games in EU Virtual Currency Crackdown,” Decrypt.

Candy Crush · EU · game industry · Minecraft · virtual currency