The European Commission (Commission) has published its much-anticipated first draft of the Digital Fairness Act (DFA). The proposal would mark a major overhaul of EU consumer law.

It aims to address consumer harm in digital environments and has significant implications for the video games industry. This article explores these proposals, the enforcement framework and what businesses in the interactive entertainment sector need to know.

Key takeaways

• Real world pricing for in-game content bought with paid-for virtual currencies.
• Paid-for virtual currencies disabled by default in games directed at under-18s, unless parents approve.
• Mandatory reward and odds disclosures, plus controls to disable paid-for loot boxes.
• Ban on paid-for loot boxes for under-18s.
• Ban on pay-to-progress and pay-to-win mechanisms for under-18s.
• Easy controls to switch off addictive design features, such as login rewards and streaks.
• Explicit bans on dark patterns that deceive or manipulate players.
• Free trial reminders and express consent before paid subscriptions begin.
• Renewal reminders and new termination rights for subscriptions lasting six months or more.
• Prescriptive online cancellation buttons, forms and acknowledgements.
• Clear influencer ad labels and no direct purchase appeals to under-18s by influencers.
• Turnover-based penalties, including Commission fines of up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover.

When and how disruptive? The timetable remains uncertain: the next year or so will bring further clarity, but the proposals still need to be discussed by the European Parliament and Council. Some of the proposed changes, including restrictions on paid-for loot boxes for under-18s and disclosures of loot box rewards and probabilities, are not entirely new and would follow developments in other markets. Other DFA proposals would be a much bigger challenge for the industry, such as displaying real world prices for virtual currency purchases, distinguishing prohibited pay-to-win or pay-to-progress mechanics from ordinary gameplay, and obtaining express consent before free trials become paid subscriptions.

And the UK? The DFA will not be implemented in the UK, but the international nature of games means that businesses serving both markets would need to comply with both regimes. Despite some common ground on consumer law, important differences remain. For example, the UK has its own detailed subscription regime that differs from the DFA proposals. Whilst the UK’s main consumer regulator, the CMA, is currently focused on dark patterns in retail rather than games specifically, it could turn its attention to games, virtual currencies and loot boxes following the DFA announcements.

What now? Whilst there isn’t a need for immediate product changes, businesses should get familiar with the DFA proposals and think about bringing product, legal and commercial teams together to identify potential changes to game design, monetisation and subscription journeys.

From directive to regulation: a huge step in harmonisation (but divergence from the UK)

The DFA is proposed as a regulation rather than a directive.  This means it would apply consistently across all Member States, without the need for national implementing legislation. A single EU rulebook would replace 27 similar national regimes, reducing divergent interpretations and gold-plating in order to give businesses greater legal certainty.

If adopted, the DFA would repeal and replace the landmark Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). In the UK, the UCPD-derived unfair commercial practices framework is now contained in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), which has retained much of that framework. There therefore remains a substantial degree of alignment between English law and the EU’s consumer protection rules. The DFA would, however, create greater divergence in the detail, particularly through its specific requirements on pay-to-win mechanics, paid-for loot boxes and virtual currencies.

The DFA is also intended to complement, rather than conflict with, the other major EU digital laws, including the Digital Services Act, the AI Act and the proposed EU KIDS Act (amongst others).

Real world pricing for virtual currency exchanges

The DFA definition of ‘paid-for virtual currencies’ captures two categories: (1) virtual currencies purchased with real world money; and (2) virtual currencies obtained in exchange for another paid-for virtual currency. For example, if a player buys gems with euros and exchanges those gems for coins, both the gems and the coins would qualify as paid-for virtual currencies.

Where players can buy in-game content using a paid-for virtual currency, the content’s real world monetary value would have to be displayed. This addresses a longstanding concern among regulators and legislators that virtual currencies risk obscuring the true cost of in-game items, making it difficult for players to calculate what they are spending. The requirement is a significant development for the industry, having been met with considerable resistance. If adopted as proposed, it would require major changes to how games calculate and display prices, particularly in the free-to-play market.

If the real world monetary value can’t be directly determined, an estimate could be used instead. This seems to address a practical difficulty discussed in our previous articles: an in-game item may have no single ‘real price’ where prices vary across channels or the original currency is discounted as part of a bundle.

Paid-for virtual currencies disabled by default for minors

For games directed at players under 18 years, paid-for virtual currencies would have to be disabled by default. They could only be activated with parent or guardian approval. The Commission’s justification is that minors find it harder to understand the real monetary value of virtual currencies. Many games already incorporate tools to control in-game spending by minors, so these requirements will not be entirely unfamiliar to some.

Mandatory paid-for loot box disclosures

‘Paid-for variable reward systems’ are items that players buy with real world money or paid-for virtual currency for a chance to win randomised rewards. Examples include loot boxes and collectible card packs. Businesses would need to disclose the items available as rewards and the probability of winning them. Players would also need easily accessible tools to disable these systems. A number of studios and publishers already disclose this information in order to comply with laws in other markets on loot boxes and similar mechanics, so these requirements will also be familiar to some.

Ban on paid-for loot boxes for minors

‘Paid-for variable reward systems’ would be banned for players under 18 years old. Unlike paid-for virtual currencies, parental approval could not be used to override the ban. The Commission’s concern is that these systems encourage unwanted spending and expose minors to gambling-like mechanics.

As similar rules are emerging in other markets globally, games businesses will need to consider how to offer child-appropriate experiences while retaining different features for adults. In the UK, we are yet to see something like this, but perhaps the DFA will ‘inspire’ local lawmakers.

Ban on pay-to-progress and pay-to-win mechanisms for minors

‘Pay-to-progress and pay-to-win mechanisms’ are purchases made with real world money or paid-for virtual currency that are necessary (or presented as necessary) to progress or succeed in a game. These would be prohibited for players under 18 years, on the basis that the Commission is concerned that they pressurise minors into spending money. Examples include artificial difficulty barriers, progression so slow that the unpaid route is “illusory”, and competitive outcomes effectively determined by spending.

The difficulty will be drawing the line between an optional purchase and one ‘presented as necessary’ for progress or success. For example, it is unclear whether promoting a booster as the best way to beat a difficult level crosses that line, even if players could complete it without paying. Again, in the UK, we are yet to see a rule like this.

Controls to disable addictive design features

Players would need an easy way to turn off certain features designed to encourage compulsive or excessive use. These include notifications unrelated to player activity, rewards or penalties that encourage frequent or scheduled play, and simulated personal relationships that keep players engaged.

For games businesses, this means reviewing features such as login rewards and streaks, and designing account settings that let players switch them off. Some may decide it is simpler to remove these features altogether.

Dark patterns

The DFA would ban online interfaces that are likely to deceive or manipulate consumers, or otherwise materially distort their purchasing decisions. The exact definition of a ‘dark pattern’ has usually been difficult for legislators to pin down. The DFA would make this clearer by listing specific practices that would be automatically prohibited as ‘dark patterns’. Examples include:

• False availability or popularity claims: Businesses could not make false claims about a product’s availability or popularity.
• Loaded choices: Businesses could not frame a decision not to buy something as the wrong choice. An example might be labelling the option to decline a paid booster item ‘No thanks, I prefer losing’.
• Nagging: Businesses could not persistently ask players to make or change a choice they have already made (unless necessary to comply with legal requirements). An example might be repeatedly displaying a paid battle pass offer after the player has expressly declined it.
• Confusing wording: Businesses could not present choices in misleading or ambiguous language, including double negatives. An example might be using ‘Do not disable auto-renewal’ for a gaming subscription.
• Fake notifications: Businesses could not send or display notifications falsely suggesting that someone has contacted the player or that a matter needs their attention.
• Obstructive journeys: Businesses could not make the steps required to refuse, withdraw or change a choice disproportionately more numerous, complex or time-consuming than is reasonably necessary.

Subscriptions

The DFA would introduce new rules for digital B2C subscriptions. Games companies that use third parties to manage their subscriptions would need to work with those providers to ensure compliance. As noted above, the UK has its own detailed and distinct B2C subscription regime under the DMCC Act (taking effect at the start of 2027). Key highlights of the DFA proposals include:

Free trial reminders and termination rights

Businesses would have to send reminders to players before free trials end. Critically, that reminder would have to explain that the player’s express agreement would be needed to move onto the paid subscription. Players would not be bound by the contract unless the reminder were sent and they expressly agreed to the paid version.

This is a very significant change for subscription businesses: players would need to actively agree to start paying, for example by clicking a button. This friction will inevitably lead to players dropping out of subscriptions after free trials. Interestingly, this rule would not cover low-cost trials (which are covered under UK DMCC Act rules).

Renewal reminders and termination rights for contracts of six months or more

Businesses would have to send a reminder before these contracts automatically renew. If the contract renews indefinitely, players could terminate at any time afterwards on one month’s notice, only paying for supply during that notice period. If the required reminder is not sent, players could terminate immediately at any time after renewal until the reminder is sent (with no payment due for the period from renewal to termination).

Cancellation buttons and cancellation forms

The DFA would obligate businesses to implement prescriptive online cancellation processes. They would need an easy-to-find button labelled ‘terminate the contract here’, or an equally clear alternative, leading to a cancellation form. Players would provide or confirm their name, the contract they want to cancel and their electronic contact details for the acknowledgement, then submit the form using a second button labelled ‘confirm the contract termination’, or an equally clear alternative. Businesses would need to acknowledge the request promptly and within a week at the latest. The idea is to make existing cancellation rights easier to exercise, not to create a new right to cancel online contracts. Building these forms and processes can be a significant operational burden for businesses. These extra steps may also sit awkwardly alongside existing cancellation pathways in account settings that already let players manage or cancel their contracts in easy ways. Businesses would need to assign responsibility to a team for handling these ‘form’ requests and dealing with missing or incorrect information from players, a common issue in practice.

Influencer marketing

The DFA would require influencer content to be prominently labelled as advertising. This is not new: it is commonly required across the EU (and the UK) under local law and regulation. The DFA would make the requirements more specific and implement them at EU level.

Games businesses using influencers would also need to ensure compliance through their contracts or, where there is no contract, through other “appropriate measures”. This would include ensuring that the required advertising disclosures appear in influencer content, such as gameplay streams.

Influencer advertising could not directly urge people under 18 years old to buy products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy for them. For example, a sponsored creator could not tell child viewers to ‘ask your parents to buy this skin’.

What now?

The DFA has already faced significant industry backlash, but the Commission appears committed to pressing ahead despite feedback from consultation and stakeholders. The proposals will now be discussed by the European Parliament and Council, and we can expect the detail to evolve during negotiations.

Businesses should nevertheless start thinking about what the proposals could mean for their games, from individual features to wider design and monetisation choices. A useful starting point would be to map virtual currency flows, paid-for rewards and progression mechanics, and identify where pricing displays, purchase prompts or engagement features may need to change.

For games played by both minors and adults (the vast majority), businesses should consider how age-appropriate experiences could work in practice, including which features would need to be restricted for younger players and where parental approval could be used. Bringing legal, product and commercial teams into those discussions early on will help games businesses understand what they need to do to implement the DFA in practice as the final rules take shape.

AUTHORS