EU Targets Activision, Ubisoft and Eight Others Over Virtual Currency Practices

The European Union has formally targeted ten of the gaming industry's biggest publishers over virtual currency systems that regulators say mislead consumers and trap money in unspendable remainders. Spearheaded by the Italian Competition Authority, the action names Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium, and Playrix as companies whose monetization practices violate consumer protection standards. For players who have spent years navigating confusing currency bundles across Call of Duty, Clash of Clans, and Rainbow Six Siege, this marks the most coordinated regulatory push yet against a business model built on friction.

The core issue dates back to the days of WiiWare and Xbox Live Arcade. It is all about platform‑specific currencies that come in bundles that don’t match the exact spend a player wants. For instance, a cosmetic skin might need 2,999 units of a game’s own currency, yet the smallest bundle you can buy holds 3,000. That one leftover unit is stuck in the account and essentially worthless. When you spread that leftover across millions of players and many purchases, the amount that’s left behind grows sizable. The EU press release explains that in‑game buys are often priced in currencies other than euros, but the final payment, whether direct or indirect, happens in euros through multiple virtual currencies, a setup that hides the true cost of each transaction.

What the Investigation Covers

The enforcement action goes beyond simple currency misalignment. Regulators identified a cluster of interconnected practices they consider predatory:

• virtual currencies sold only in bundles that don't align with purchase costs
• dark patterns that nudge players toward spending more than intended
• parental controls deemed inadequate for protecting children
• lack of meaningful assistance when accounts are blocked or restricted

These problems pile up. When a child uses a parent's card, they can be nudged into buying a bigger bundle through a hidden trick, after which the

Call of Duty received specific mention in the EU's materials as a title needing to improve its monetization practices. The franchise's battle pass tiers, store bundles, and COD Points system exemplify the misalignment regulators want addressed — players buy COD Points in fixed denominations that rarely match the exact cost of store items, creating the very remainders the EU considers deceptive. For a series that generates billions in annual microtransaction revenue, even small adjustments to currency granularity could represent a meaningful shift in how value flows between publisher and player.

Industry Response and Precedent

Epic Games moved proactively ahead of the enforcement wave, announcing that starting this month Fortnite players can purchase exact V-Bucks amounts for specific items rather than forced bundles — though notably, this change does not extend to PlayStation platforms. The carve-out highlights how platform holder policies can constrain even willing publishers. Most major companies have already modernized their currency systems to allow more precise purchasing, but the EU's action makes clear that "most" isn't sufficient when ten significant publishers still rely on the old model. The regulatory pressure extends beyond Europe; consumer protection boards worldwide have begun targeting gambling-adjacent mechanics, age-rating loopholes, and digital ownership questions throughout the year.

Going forward, each of the ten firms will likely have to redesign their currency systems so players can buy items in precise amounts. They'll also need to adjust bundle prices to better reflect the real cost of the included content and improve parental‑control options. Clearer support lines for player accounts will also be a priority. The cost of meeting these rules will differ: companies like King and Supercell, whose mobile lineups count on high micro‑transaction rates, will probably bear tougher engineering demands and revenue shifts than studios that spread risk across multiple revenue streams. Still, the message is simple: regulators are putting the era of planned in‑game friction to bed, and the brief window where it served as a retention or profit strategy is winding down.

This enforcement action arrives alongside a global wave of consumer protection efforts targeting gaming monetization — from age-rating adjustments for gambling-adjacent mechanics to emerging precedents around digital ownership. The ten publishers now face a choice: restructure their currency systems proactively or defend practices that regulators across multiple jurisdictions have deemed deceptive. For players, the outcome could finally mean buying exactly what they want, when they want it, without the tax of perpetual remainders.