As Brussels moves ahead with its proposed DFA (Digital Fairness Act), Europe’s gaming industry is sounding the alarm. The regulation was described by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as looking “to tackle unethical techniques and commercial practices related to dark patterns, marketing by social media influencers, the addictive design of digital products and online profiling, especially when consumer vulnerabilities are exploited for commercial purposes”.
Framed as a broad consumer-protection measure, the DFA aims to strengthen safeguards for minors and improve transparency around digital products. This includes how users interact within video games. In particular, how virtual currencies and in-game purchases are presented to players.
Among the proposed changes are requirements for developers to display real-world currency equivalents alongside virtual ones, new restrictions on “pay-to-win” mechanics and loot boxes, and potential limits on certain “addictive” or “dark pattern” design features that encourage prolonged play or spending. The ongoing consultation also raises questions about refund rights for digital goods and the use of age-based restrictions for minors.
In response, game developers warn that the current direction risks collateral damage to Europe’s gaming and creative economy. They argue that such rules could hurt Europe’s global competitiveness, force studios to develop separate versions of games for the European market, and put at risk the sustainability of the free‑to‑play model that underpins much of the industry.
You might be interested
To understand what’s at stake for developers, EU Perspectives spoke with Jari-Pekka Kaleva, Managing Director of the EGDF (European Games Developer Federation), which represents over 2500 game studios across 22 countries.
In game content vs real-world currency
The DFA’s proposal that games display real-world currency equivalents alongside virtual ones has drawn criticism from both major studios like Supercell and smaller developers. Is this also a concern for the EGDF?
Our major concern is the European Commission treating in-game currencies as if they were Bitcoin-like virtual currencies. From our perspective, in-game currencies, like coins and diamonds, are in-game content, nothing else. It might sound like a small distinction, but it would completely change how games work.
From a player’s perspective, the idea of showing a real-world monetary value for in-game items would actually be misleading. Players could think that the in-game currency has real financial value or can be exchanged for money, which isn’t true. It would also lead to an avalanche of pop-ups and approval requests every time a player uses in-game currency. This could lead to a similar current frustration with cookie banners and ruin the gameplay experience.
It would force developers to create a completely different version of the game for the European markets – Jari-Pekka Kaleva, Managing Director of the EGDF
Also, many parents give their kids money to spend on games. Let’s say they give their child 2€ a week, to change for some in-game currency, like diamonds or gold coins. Kids can then decide how to spend it in the game. But if it were in monetary value, then parents would have to approve each purchase on behalf of their children. That would be really annoying for the parents, who can now enable their children to actually make these kinds of decisions inside the game without their approval.
We see that the current system works very well for the players and for business. You can have an in-game store to buy these in-game currencies, and it’s clear that this is the place where the monetary transactions happen.
Would different versions suddenly be needed?
What would these rules mean for game studios operating in Europe?
It would force developers to create a completely different version of the game for the European markets. For small and mid-sized studios, that’s a major burden. The EU is our home market, and if European studios can’t design freely here, it’s much harder for them to compete globally. Developers in the US, China, or Japan enjoy a natural advantage in their domestic markets, as it happens everywhere. And if we cannot build our games for the European home market, it’s going to be much harder for the European companies to actually conquer the global markets, and it would really hurt our competitiveness.
The DFA looks to protect minors who play online video games. Where do you see opportunities for collaboration with EU regulators on this front?
The video games industry takes the protection of minors extremely seriously. We have been running the PEGI European Age Rating system for 20 years now, exactly to address concerns like this. Like the kind of content is suitable for minors. Our approach has always been much more granular than simply “18 or not”. It’s about what kind of content is suitable for children of different ages.
We also firmly believe there should be room for parents to make their own decisions about what is suitable content for their children. Sometimes your child is 11 and a half, and the parent can decide that a game recommended for 12-year-olds is fine. We absolutely need guidance and support to help parents make these kinds of decisions and teach their children how to grow up in the digital world.
What we’re happy to do within this regulatory framework is explore where updates might be needed. In the PEGI Code of Conduct, we already have a number of requirements that are included in the Commission consultation. For example, the transparency of loot boxes and their odds. That’s already required under the PEGI Code of Conduct.
What we would like to see is for European consumer law to actually acknowledge it. Because at the moment, for example, Apple and Steam do not use European age ratings. From our perspective, this isn’t only about protecting minors, though that’s the main concern. But also about European digital sovereignty. When it comes to deciding what content is suitable for European minors, those decisions must be made in Europe. Therefore, all platforms should follow the European co-regulatory standards for age-appropriate content.
Additional impact?
Do you believe the DFA proposed rules could push studios to relocate outside of the EU?
Not necessarily because of the rules themselves, but because of how they’re enforced. That is something that we are a bit worried about at the moment. Current enforcement tends to target companies based within the EU. If you don’t have any offices in the EU, it feels like you are more likely to avoid enforcement actions. And we, of course, see that it should be fair for everyone. We need to call for strict enforcement of the already existing consumer rules that are very valuable to actually address most of the challenges.
If you have a big studio, you have legal resources to monitor regulatory developments in 180 countries. If you are an SME, you don’t have those resources – Jari-Pekka Kaleva, Managing Director of the EGDF
Another way these rules can damage competitiveness is that they accelerate the regulatory fragmentation of global markets. If you have a big studio, you have legal resources to monitor regulatory developments in 180 countries. If you are an SME, you don’t have those resources. You need to get them from somewhere, which requires a larger initial investment from investors, and so on. From both companies’ and investors’ perspectives, this creates unnecessary uncertainty. What will be the future of the European regulatory framework? What kind of gains can we make?
The biggest question
Can the proposed rules impact the development of free games or force studios to rethink that model?
That’s literally a million-euro question. It depends, of course, on what type of restrictions there are, but you would have to redesign the games for the European market. Then you might come up with some alternative ways to do it, but it’s definitely going to be completely different from the American, Japanese, and South Korean markets. And then the question is: is it worth it? If two-thirds of your money is coming from those markets, do you really want to invest in building something completely different for the EU?
Some developers argue that responsible self-regulation could achieve many of the DFA’s goals. What kind of approach would you support?
We see co-regulation as the best way forward for industries like the games industry, which changes very rapidly. Co-regulation is agile enough to find practical ways to implement changes, together with the Commission’s guidelines. In that context, we hope the Commission places the current co-regulatory system into consumer law so that every actor operating in the European digital single market is within that framework.
The PEGI system, for example, brings together national enforcement authorities responsible for media and game education, companies from the European and global games industry, including major platforms like Sony and Nintendo, as well as developer studios and representatives from the European Games Developer Federation. Alongside academic experts and member state representatives, the system looks at how to address challenges in the industry. The age ratings are the most visible part of it, but the Basic Code of Conduct is equally important.
An integral part of PEGI is its complaint and enforcement mechanisms. There have been fines issued to non-compliant companies. For example, Bandai Namco received a €5k fine. The amount isn’t what matters most. It’s the accountability in front of peers. PEGI operates in 35 countries, with administrative bodies and different committees.
This is what we mean by co-regulation, not self-regulation. Member States are represented in the system. Beyond that, there are additional industry commitments, which ideally should be brought step by step into the PEGI framework.
