Digital Fairness Act Monitor

Gaming and in-app purchases

Gaming journeys can combine virtual currency, random rewards, time pressure, social prompts and purchases within an entertainment loop. The legal analysis is fact- and audience-specific across consumer, platform, privacy and media rules. Teams should expose real-world cost, distinguish play from purchase, test child-facing design and avoid assuming a future DFA outcome.

Under consideration
Primary risk surface
Purchase inside an engagement loop
Key audience factor
Minors and other vulnerable consumers
Future policy
Track official text; do not infer a ban

Which screens should be tested?

Review currency purchase, item display, probability or availability information, parental controls, refund, spending history and stopping points as one connected journey. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveDigital Services Act

What evidence matters?

Retain item and currency configuration, real-money equivalents, probability disclosures where relevant, age treatment, prompt frequency and the exact UI version presented at purchase. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveDigital Services Act

What does this look like in a customer journey?

Illustrative example 1 · Virtual-currency purchase

A fictional mobile game prices an item at 1,200 gems, sells gems only in mismatched bundles and does not show the real-money amount paid or the balance that will remain after the purchase.

Why it may matter: Currency layering may make cost comparison and leftover value harder to understand, but legal treatment depends on the offer, disclosure, audience and specific rules in scope.

Illustrative example 2 · Time-pressure purchase loop

A fictional game interrupts play with a “one chance only” reward chest, starts a short timer and places the paid purchase control where the player was already tapping, even though the same offer returns every day.

Why it may matter: False scarcity, time pressure and action placement may cause an unintended purchase, with greater concern where the expected audience includes children.

Illustrative customer journey

Interface comparison

Potentially problematicLast chance · 1,200 gems
Neutral alternativeItem price · 1,200 gems (€14.99 bundle)
Abstract comparison between a timed virtual-currency offer with hidden real cost and an offer showing bundle cost, remaining balance and repeat availability.Provenance: Original abstract UI comparison created by the portal editorial team; no real brand, product or interface is depicted.

What is a fairer or lower-risk alternative?

Separate play from payment, translate virtual value into understandable real-world cost and make availability claims verifiable. Use distinct confirmation, spending history, refund and age-aware controls, and preserve the exact configuration shown to the player without calling one design universally compliant.

What is regulated, proposed or still open?

Evidence layerStatusWhat the source supports
Current lawCurrent lawCurrent consumer law can apply to commercial presentation, while DSA and AVMSD duties depend on service and actor scope. DSA Article 25 is limited to online platforms and does not apply where the practice is covered by the UCPD or GDPR under Article 25(2). Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveDigital Services ActAudiovisual Media Services Directive
Officially announcedOfficially announcedThe 2030 Consumer Agenda names features of games, social media and e-commerce among DFA preparation areas. That official announcement does not prohibit virtual currencies, random rewards or in-app purchases as categories. 2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan for consumers in the Single MarketReview of EU consumer law
Under considerationUnder considerationThe impact-assessment process is considering possible responses to digital-fairness problems. It has not settled which game mechanics, monetisation models, providers or audiences a proposal would cover. Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment
Stakeholder proposalStakeholder proposalChildren’s reported preferences on addictive design, personalised advertising or pricing, influencer marketing and age verification are relevant stakeholder evidence for game journeys, not enacted game-specific rules. Commission survey shows children want better rules to ensure digital fairness for all
Editorial analysisEditorial analysisFitness-check and behavioural evidence can inform analysis of pressure, pricing and choice architecture in games. Research categories and prevalence observations are not individual infringement findings. Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairnessBehavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environment
UnknownUnknownAny DFA definitions or rules for virtual currency, random rewards, pressure mechanics, age assurance, spending controls, remedies or application dates remain unknown pending a published proposal. Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence MomentDigital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment

What should teams review?

  • Review and document the decisions described in “Which screens should be tested?”.
  • Review and document the decisions described in “What evidence matters?”.

Evidence to retain

  • Primary risk surface: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for purchase inside an engagement loop.
  • Key audience factor: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for minors and other vulnerable consumers.
  • Future policy: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for track official text; do not infer a ban.

Evidence base

Sources

  1. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528
  2. Digital Services ActEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Regulation (EU) 2022/2065; CELEX 32022R2065
  3. Audiovisual Media Services DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2010/13/EU; CELEX 02010L0013-20181218
  4. Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessmentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Initiative 14622; Ares(2025)6275573
  5. 2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan for consumers in the Single MarketEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · COM(2025) 848 final; CELEX 52025DC0848
  6. Review of EU consumer lawEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
  7. Commission survey shows children want better rules to ensure digital fairness for allEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
  8. Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairnessEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · SWD(2024) 230 final
  9. Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environmentEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.2838/859030; ISBN 978-92-76-52316-1
  10. Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence MomentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · COM(2025) 870 final; CELEX 52025DC0870; Annex I item 30