EU’s Digital Fairness Act Sparks Industry Backlash Over Microtransaction Rules
The EU’s new Digital Fairness Act (DFA) aims to regulate microtransactions and manipulative game design, forcing companies to show real-money values, simplify currencies, and allow refunds. Developers like Supercell argue the rules will hurt gameplay and damage Europe’s €27 billion gaming industry, especially for smaller studios.
Regulators say the act will protect consumers from exploitative practices. The key debate is whether in-game currency should be treated as real money, which could reshape how games across Europe operate. The DFA could become a global model for fair digital design or a major blow to EU gaming innovation.
In Details:
The European Union’s latest regulatory push, the Digital Fairness Act (DFA), is stirring major debate across the gaming world. The act aims to curb manipulative and exploitative design practices in games, particularly around microtransactions, but major developers warn that the new framework could do more harm than good.
Background:
The controversy began earlier this year when the EU’s Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) introduced new principles for in-game monetization following a case involving the Swedish game Star Stable. The CPC’s guidelines targeted practices such as deceptive interfaces, multiple in-game currencies, and FOMO-driven offers, requiring clearer monetary transparency, real-value listings, refund options, and the removal of “dark patterns”.
Now, the Digital Fairness Act seeks to formalize these guidelines across the EU, expanding oversight on how games handle virtual currencies and in-game purchases.
Industry Reaction:
The gaming industry, led by major studios like Supercell (Clash of Clans), has fired back. In an open letter, Supercell’s CEO warned that the new laws could “break how many games fundamentally work” and potentially damage Europe’s €27 billion gaming industry. Developers argue that treating in-game currencies as real-world money could introduce complex legal and financial hurdles, likening the rules to banking or crypto regulations.
Supercell’s CEO used a “theme park token” analogy, arguing that the proposed changes could turn a simple, convenient system into one requiring individual approvals and contracts for every purchase, ruining the player experience.
Other developers and industry federations have echoed this, saying the act risks collateral damage to Europe’s tech ecosystem, discouraging innovation and favoring large incumbents over smaller studios that can’t afford compliance costs.
Legal Confusion and Internal Conflict:
The backlash isn’t just about the rules, it’s about who’s making them. Different EU bodies appear to hold contradictory interpretations of what in-game currencies legally represent.
• The CPC treats them as digital representations of real money.
• The EU Advocate General, however, has previously ruled that such currencies are digital secondhand goods, not financial assets.
This lack of internal coherence has left developers caught in bureaucratic crossfire, unsure which laws to follow or how to prepare for 2026, when the DFA is expected to take effect.
The Broader Debate:
Critics of the industry point out that self-regulation has failed, citing repeated scandals around loot boxes, predatory monetization, and addictive mechanics targeting minors. They argue that even if the DFA causes short-term disruption, it’s a necessary step toward consumer protection and transparency.
Supporters of the act say the goal isn’t to kill microtransactions but to ensure they’re fair, honest, and not manipulative, especially as gaming and gambling practices increasingly overlap.
The Bottom Line:
The EU’s Digital Fairness Act could reshape the future of game monetization across Europe. Developers fear it will stifle creativity and burden smaller studios, while regulators insist it’s time to clean up exploitative practices.
The truth likely lies somewhere in between: regulation is needed, but implementation will make or break the outcome. If done right, it could set a global precedent for ethical digital design. If not, it could cripple one of Europe’s most successful tech sectors.
Either way, the reckoning for in-game monetization has officially begun.
source:
finally, it was time……..
Was it tho?
You can thank King Donald Trump of United States imposing Tariffs…Forced EU to make these rules
God bless EU for this
Was always going to happen
Companies encouraging Child gambling always knew it was going to be temporary
naw bro you giving companies too much credit lol
they were greedy fks and thought they could milk customers infinitely.
Gaming companies are far too reliant on exploitation, game manipulation and misinformation
Eventually only the nightmare scenario will be left.
They will be forced to be good at their job and provide a proper gaming environment !
OMG Nightmare ! 😀
I want to make a Halloween mask from your face
As much as the EU Commission tends to overregulate everything, here I’m firmly with it. Even though we like to hate on WG’s predatory monetization, there are many worse studios and games. And still, DFA will make tiered lootboxes illegal, because what you receive from, say, 100 boxes is too hard to estimate and can easily be labelled as “non-transparent”. The regular boxes though are just fine – you have a transparent bad luck prevention and even the odds of getting every individual item are publicly available (for now only on the Korean website, but it can easily be copy-pasted to the EU website as well).
Tend to agree This law will indeed greatly reduce quality of games and prevents new content in many. This law should be struck down
It depends on how they rule on the other areas like ingame currency etc., if the normal boxes will remain legal…
But in general WGs christmas boxes at least should remain fair, as they are, and not be against this law. maybe WG may need to add a disclaimer you buy the 250 gold+bonus, and the € values for each item, from what I get not only the odds – but thats not to much work.
However the FOMO forexample, if ruled against, means that all the lootbox content or the boxes would need to be permanently available. (I would still only buy them at christmas though)
I worry more about the ingame currency discussion.
Yes! Get greedy WG by their asses! I hate the EU superregulations everywhere – but this is nice!!
Its only for new games as far as I understand.
Stupidity comments
don’t worry, WG will find a loophole for this anyway
To bad EU only has a stong car lobby, not a strong dev lobby…
This will take a loong time to be pushed from EU to the countries.
IF it is decided.
And we dont know what yet.
Lets assume they forbid FOMO offers. Then all Tanks sold are also permanently in the premiumshop. Easy solution. Even lootbox offers would then give a direct buy option- probably making regular premium tanks more expensive to offset that.
If they ruule only 1 ingame currency, WoT is F**ed. But I doubt it will happen once anyone explains to them how ngame currencies can work. Like Credits, or Bonds, or this scrap stuff fromexp equip… And yes, gold. They should only be able to regulate gold, if anything.
If the rule a return policy for digital goods they would need to be extremely precise, when, what, where. I doubt we can get anything but instant refund if you did NOT use the good yet. Which WG already offers via support usually. Any other return policy would not work and damage all game companies revenues. Doubt it will come. but if it does, we will NEVER see any premium nerfs ever. I would prefer a fair balance.
They could try to ban loot boxed in general. But the christmas ones at least do have real value + bonuses – so acccording to all laws apart from belgium (which took a step in a wrong direction there) the christmas boxes are legal. They have a very specific content, 250 Gold + Bonus. All thats missing i sWG writing how much 250 Gold cost in the regular premium shop, and all other bonuses also need real € prices besides the, That would only show how weak/ strong the offer is.
-> all in all, I dont see anything happen soon. But we will see. I like the christmas boxes to support wg and have great gold value. at least 250 to get all premiums or 300 for an extra gold boost are what I like to spend each year. If WG would ad dmore tanks to make this number go up, I would be out. But it would be sad if they would remove the boxes, they are a good and long ongoing tradition helping my christmas mood. I would not bothe rbuying all the low tier tanks for 30€ for example. And not even think about 50 for ONE tank…