The legal debate over the characterisation of in-game currency has continued for some time now. What happens when it lands in the EU’s highest court? This article dives into the CJEU’s 2026 ruling in Žaidimų Valiuta (C-472/24), in which the CJEU held that Runescape Gold is neither a virtual currency nor a voucher for VAT purposes. It also asks what that means for the ongoing regulatory battle over premium in-game currencies.

The origin story

The in-game currency debate kicked off in 2024, when BEUC [¹] filed a complaint to the European Commission, and continued into 2025 when the CPC Network [²] published its “Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currencies”. Both publications take aim at the industry’s use of premium in-game currency (i.e. currency purchased with real-world money). BEUC and the CPC Network argued that premium in-game currency obscures the real value of in-game content and denies certain consumer rights. Going further, they contend that in-game currency is a “digital representation of value”. In other words, a direct proxy for real-world money. If correct, consumer law obligations and contract formation would not simply be triggered when a player first purchases a bundle of gems with real money, but at all subsequent exchanges of those gems for in-game content.

The European Commission’s 2024 Digital Fairness Fitness Check echoed BEUC and the CPC Network’s concerns. The upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA) looks set to codify the Commission’s proposed solution into law. A first draft is not expected until later on in 2026, but the DFA consultation hints at what might be coming, including a requirement for real-world money pricing being displayed alongside in-game currency prices.

The industry response

The industry responded swiftly and robustly. The key counterargument is that in-game currency is not a financial instrument. Rather, it is content which is part of the game, the purpose of which is to enhance the player experience. On that basis, it is difficult to see how a player exchanging gems for in-game content is concluding a new consumer contract; they are simply exchanging one category of digital content for another.

The practical consequences of the alternative view would be seismic. Developers would need to build features to display an array of pre-contractual information (including real-world prices – which would first need to be calculated in real-time and in the correct currency); players would need to accept each contract, waive their digital content withdrawal rights, and receive a copy of the ‘contract’ electronically. Indeed, there may not even be a single determinable “real price” for in-game currency, given, for example, it can usually be purchased through different retail channels at different price points. In-game item exchanges, which are supposed to integrate seamlessly into the gameplay experience, would become a disruptive chore. Moreover, treating in-game item exchanges in this way seems legally flawed.

In-game currency in the EU courts

While stakeholder conversations continue behind closed doors, the in-game currency debate has entered EU courtrooms. In March 2026, the CJEU held in Žaidimų Valiuta (ZV) (C-472/24) that Runescape Gold was neither a virtual currency nor a voucher for VAT purposes.

Runescape Gold can be acquired with real-world money indirectly via a ‘Bond’ purchased from the developer, Jagex. ZV bought and sold Runescape Gold via third party platforms in exchange for real-world money (notably, in breach of Jagex’s Terms of Service). The Lithuanian tax authority found that ZV had not declared or paid VAT on those transactions, and ordered that ZV pay the outstanding VAT, plus interest and a fine. Legal proceedings were commenced, and questions over the characterisation of in-game currency were ultimately referred to the CJEU.

Runescape Gold as a virtual currency?

ZV first argued that Runescape Gold is a virtual currency, so its sale should be VAT-exempt under the exemption covering currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender. ZV referred to the CJEU’s ruling in Hedqvist (C-264/14), where the CJEU held that exchanging Bitcoin for traditional currencies was VAT-exempt because Bitcoin functioned as a “non-traditional currency”. This was because the Bitcoin satisfied the following criteria: (i) it was accepted by the parties as an alternative to legal tender; and (ii) it had no purpose other than to be a means of payment. In essence, it was a financial transaction. ZV argued that Runescape Gold was analogous to Bitcoin in that sense.

The CJEU disagreed, finding that Runescape Gold failed both Hedqvist conditions. It held that Runescape Gold had no purpose other than to be used within the game. That in-game purpose prevented it from constituting a currency that could be accepted as payment for goods or services. The fact that players do not own the Runescape Gold under Jagex’s Terms of Service further reinforced that conclusion.

Runescape Gold as a voucher?

ZV then argued that the Runescape Gold should be classified as a “multi-purpose voucher”, for which VAT is only charged at the point of redemption. Two conditions needed to be met: (i) there must be an obligation to accept the instrument as consideration for a supply of goods or services; and (ii) the goods or services to be supplied must be on the instrument or in related documentation (such as terms and conditions).

Again, the CJEU disagreed. It held that Runescape Gold was not a voucher because it failed to meet the first condition. A voucher serves to procure a further consumable benefit (a good or service). Runescape Gold does not work in this way. When a player spends Runescape Gold on weapons, armour or consumables, they are not exchanging it for a separate service. Rather, the player is engaging directly with the game service itself.

Where does this leave us?

The CJEU in this case found that Runescape Gold was not a “virtual currency” (and therefore there was not a financial transaction) under VAT law because it only serves an in-game purpose.

On the face of it, this outcome appears to conflict with the CPC Network’s position that premium in-game currencies are a “digital representation of value”. On the contrary, the CJEU’s characterisation of Runescape Gold as an electronic service seems to align with the industry’s position that an in-game currency is digital content which is part of the gaming experience.  

The correct characterisation of in-game currencies by regulators is critical to the industry and consumers. As noted above, the CPC Network’s interpretation would create significant practical compliance considerations for many in the industry. The CJEU case points in a helpful direction for industry, but it does not conclude the debate.

This was, of course, a VAT-specific case. The CJEU did not rule on the categorisation of in-game currency under consumer law, and so ambiguity remains. It does, however, illustrate the difficulties of adopting a blanket approach which treats in-game item exchanges as financial transactions, and the unintended and far-reaching consequences that this could lead to in multiple areas of the law. It also suggests that a more nuanced approach to both soft and hard legislation, which takes into account the specificities of the video games industry, would be more appropriate.

---

1. The Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, an umbrella body representing consumer organisations across EU member states. ↩︎
2. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, a network of national authorities responsible for enforcing EU consumer protection laws. ↩︎

AUTHORS

26/02/2026

Insights

Loot box crackdown in the UK: what you need to know