ACM probes game providers over virtual currency pricing

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is leading nine Consumer Protection Coordination Network (CPC) investigations into game providers’ use of virtual currencies, changing the immediate design question: can players see an in-game purchase’s real-money cost before buying?

The companies named are Crytek GmbH, InnoGames GmbH, King.com Operations (Malta) Limited, Mojang AB, Plarium Europe S.à.r.l., PLR Worldwide Sales Limited, Riot Games Limited, Supercell Oy and Ubisoft EMEA SAS. The ACM says the action concerns consumer protection and does not establish that any named company has breached the law.

The payment journey is the mechanism under review

The ACM notice identifies two linked features. Game purchases may be presented in diamonds, coins or another virtual unit rather than euros, making it harder for players to recognise that they are spending real money and to understand how much. Currency bundles may also fail to match the price of an item, leaving players with unused balances.

The ACM says those balances can encourage further purchases. It also identifies dark patterns, prompts directed at children and lootboxes with gambling elements as broader consumer concerns. Those are concerns described by the authorities, not findings against each named provider.

Martijn Ridderbos, an ACM board member, said: "If you spend currency in a game, you are spending real money." He said game providers must not use methods that mislead consumers or expose them to unforeseen costs.

The decision for a provider is therefore how to evidence the purchase journey. A possible response is to show the euro price, the relationship between virtual units and the item, the bundle quantity and any remaining balance at the point of purchase. That is an inference from the conduct described by the ACM, not an ACM-prescribed interface standard.

Nine new investigations follow sector discussions

The CPC is a cooperation network of European consumer authorities and the European Commission. The ACM says the authorities chose joint action because games appear in similar form across countries and providers need rules to be interpreted consistently. The network also enables member states to request assistance in cross-border cases.

The nine games associated with the new investigations are Hunt: Showdown 1896, Forge of Empires, Candy Crush Saga, Minecraft, Mech Arena, Gardenscapes, Valorant, Clash of Clans and For Honor. The ACM says investigations were already under way into Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile, associated with the Activision Blizzard/Microsoft group, and Star Stable.

The source does not identify which national consumer authority leads each investigation. It says that, under ACM leadership, European authorities spent the past year discussing required changes with the gaming sector and reviewing industry proposals. The ACM says those proposals did not adequately resolve the identified problems or produce the large-scale changes it considered necessary.

That posture limits the immediate conclusion. The notice describes formal investigations and concerns, not a final finding, penalty or general prohibition applying to all game providers.

The evidence request comes before any remedy

For providers under review, the practical evidence request is specific: show how players see the real-money price, how virtual currency relates to the purchase, how bundles operate and what happens to an unused balance. The ACM’s concern is whether the payment presentation leaves consumers unable to understand the transaction. The source does not quantify compliance costs, player migration, advertising effects or market exit.

The ACM also asks for clearer and stricter European consumer rules as part of work on the proposed Digital Fairness Act. It recommends that lootboxes and virtual currencies no longer be used in video games, especially where minors play. The notice presents that recommendation as input to a European legal update, not as an operative ban created by the nine investigations.

The next technical and supervisory test is the evidence produced by the individual investigations: whether the examined games disclose real-money costs clearly, how their bundles and residual balances function, and whether later CPC or ACM publications identify findings or remedies.