Regulating Play: How Global Authorities Are Catching Up with In‑Game Monetization

Regulating Play: How Global Authorities Are Catching Up with In‑Game Monetization

Hook: If you've ever been surprised by a monthly bill from in‑game purchases, frustrated by opaque virtual currencies, or lost faith in a crowdfunded project that never delivered, you're not alone. Gamers, creators, and publishers are all caught in a shifting legal landscape where regulators are finally moving from warnings to enforcement — and 2026 is shaping up to be a turning point.

Why this matters now

Pain points for our audience are clear: confusing monetization, predatory design aimed at kids, and crowdfunding fraud are making it hard to trust both mainstream publishers and independent creators. Late 2025 and early 2026 brought fresh regulatory activity — most prominently Italy's Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) opening investigations into Microsoft/Activision Blizzard for alleged "misleading and aggressive" practices in mobile titles. That enforcement action is the latest sign regulators are ready to move from guidance into concrete penalties and remedies.

What the AGCM is investigating

"These practices, together with strategies that make it difficult for users to understand the real value of the virtual currency used in the game and the sale of in‑game currency in bundles, may influence players as consumers — including minors — leading them to spend significant amounts..."

The AGCM has publicly flagged several elements that are increasingly under global scrutiny:

• Dark patterns and time pressure designed to keep players playing and spending;
• Obfuscation of currency value (bundles, discounts, and virtual coins that hide real cost);
• Mechanics that target minors or rely on their inability to assess long‑term spending;
• Advertisements that imply games are free while encouraging heavy spending to progress.

How Italy's move compares to international trends

Italy's AGCM action is part of a broader wave of global scrutiny. It's helpful to compare that development with other regulatory threads so publishers and players understand where enforcement is heading.

European Union — tightening consumer protection and digital rules

The EU has been steadily building an enforcement framework that touches in‑game monetization. Two parts of the landscape are particularly relevant:

• Consumer protection / Unfair Commercial Practices: Member states apply EU directives to challenge misleading sales and aggressive commercial tactics. Regulators in several countries have used these laws to scrutinize game monetization.
• Digital Services Act (DSA): While primarily focused on platform transparency and illegal content, the DSA also raises the bar for how platforms handle consumer complaints and algorithmic transparency — factors that affect discoverability and how monetized offers are promoted.

Practically, this means cross‑border cooperation and faster sharing of enforcement intelligence between national authorities, making piecemeal compliance less tenable for multinational publishers.

United Kingdom

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have been vocal about dark patterns and misleading adverts for a number of years. The UK has pushed industry actors to update marketing language for "free‑to‑play" claims and to be explicit about in‑game purchase mechanics. While the UK hasn't pursued the same high‑profile probe as the AGCM in early 2026, its earlier guidance and ongoing reviews set a precedent for action.

Belgium, Netherlands, and other gambling regulators

Belgium's stance (from 2018 onward) treating certain loot boxes as illegal gambling) and rulings from Netherlands regulators have already shown that where chance and valuable prizes intersect with purchases, regulators will consider gambling laws. That precedent continues to underlie enforcement thinking: mechanics that resemble gambling are likely to face the strictest scrutiny and potential prohibition.

United States — consumer‑protection and state patchwork

The U.S. lacks a single federal standard applied to in‑game monetization; instead, the regulatory approach has been a mix of:

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC) interest in deceptive practices and data‑driven targeting;
• State consumer‑protection laws and targeted bills aimed at loot boxes and microtransactions;
• Class actions and private litigation alleging misleading marketing or failure to deliver promised digital goods.

Expect litigation to pick up in the U.S. as plaintiffs test theories of harm — especially where purchases are made by minors or where publishers permit ambiguous refund/fulfillment practices.

Asia & Oceania — mixed but increasingly active

South Korea, China, and Australia have all taken regulatory interest in monetization. South Korea has long controlled online game practices and payment flows, China limited loot box mechanics and implemented spending caps, and Australia has stepped up investigations into in‑app purchases. Those actions inform global expectations for compliance, especially for publishers with large APAC user bases.

Crowdfunding failures: why GoFundMe and game KS flops matter

Regulation is not only about in‑game purchases. Crowdfunding abuses and platform misuse have accelerated calls for tighter platform liability.

High‑profile crowdfunding misuse: the Mickey Rourke GoFundMe case

In January 2026, Rolling Stone reported that actor Mickey Rourke distanced himself from an active GoFundMe campaign that raised significant sums under misleading pretenses. This is a reminder that open crowdfunding platforms can be used to solicit money under false or unclear claims — and that even celebrity‑adjacent campaigns can become legal and reputational liabilities.

Board game and video game crowdfunding controversies

Stretch goals, delayed fulfillment, and shifting promises have long plagued crowdfunded tabletop titles and videogame projects. Although most creators are honest, high‑visibility failures have harmed consumer trust and prompted regulators and platforms to examine whether existing protections are adequate for backers who pay upfront for a product that may never materialize.

Regulatory response to crowdfunding issues

Regulators and platforms are reacting in three ways:

• Platform rule changes: Some platforms now require clearer project roadmaps, expense breakdowns, and milestones tied to funds release. See our Micro‑Launch Playbook for practical staging ideas.
• Enhanced refund and dispute mechanisms: Expect stronger obligations on crowdfunding platforms to mediate disputes and restore funds when campaigns mislead backers.
• Consumer‑protection enforcement: Regulators may apply consumer law to crowdfunding campaigns that amount to commercial sales, especially where creators repeatedly fail to fulfill promises.

Legal precedents shaping enforcement

Several legal doctrines and precedents are now guiding regulators and courts worldwide:

• Unfair commercial practices and false advertising: Misrepresenting the true cost of progression or labeling a product "free" when monetization is essential has been actionable under consumer law. (See broader analysis on platform economics and embedded payments.)
• Gambling law applications: When chance determines valuable outcomes, gambling regulators may step in — this is the legal basis used in Belgium and elsewhere.
• Protection of minors: Laws protecting children from exploitative commercial practices can increase liability and penalties when games knowingly target young players.
• Platform liability and intermediary duties: Newer digital laws (e.g., DSA in the EU) compel platforms and marketplaces to be more accountable for illegal or misleading commercial activity they facilitate.

What publishers should expect next (practical roadmap)

Publishers need to treat 2026 as the year to convert compliance aspirations into verifiable practices. Here's a practical, prioritized roadmap.

1. Audit monetization for transparency

1. Publish clear, persistent pricing information in local currency; show the real cost of virtual bundles and conversions.
2. Scrutinize timers, scarcity messages, and social pressure mechanics; document the rationale for each design choice and remove elements that could be construed as manipulative.

2. Harden protections for minors

• Implement age gates tied to verifiable controls where spending is possible (draw on best practices for trust and distribution from modular installer and distribution playbooks).
• Offer parental controls and purchase limits by default; require opt‑in for high‑value purchases rather than opt‑out.

3. Improve refund and dispute policies

Clear refund pathways reduce regulator complaints and class‑action risk. Commit to time‑boxed refund policies for in‑game purchases and make them easy to execute without long waits. See implementation notes in operational reviews such as the NextStream platform review for how to test end-to-end flows.

4. Revisit advertising and "free‑to‑play" claims

Update marketing materials to reflect that while entry is free, meaningful progression may require purchases. Avoid implying paywalls are optional if they impact core enjoyability. Look to indie publishers and curation strategies in curation reports for examples of transparent messaging.

5. Strengthen platform and payment partner agreements

Negotiate contract clauses that protect you from fraud, require payment reversals when appropriate, and ensure local legal compliance, especially in EU/UK/APAC markets. For background on embedded payments and platform economics, see this analysis.

6. Prepare for regulator inquiries

Maintain an internal compliance docket: data on A/B tests, art assets used in monetization messaging, purchase funnels, and decision logs. Regulators increasingly request experimental evidence showing intent or knowledge. Use staged playbooks such as the Micro‑Launch Playbook to structure your compliance packet and documentation.

7. For crowdfunders: adopt best practices now

• Publish clear budgets and milestones tied to funding.
• Use escrowed funds or phased disbursements for stretch goals where feasible.
• Offer transparent updates and documented refunds for major setbacks — learnings from projects and case studies such as the shelter micro-event campaign are instructive.

Actionable advice for consumers and backers

Players and backers can take steps to protect themselves and to push for better industry standards.

• Document transactions: Keep receipts, screenshots of offers, and messaging that describes the promised digital goods.
• Use payment protections: Where possible, use payment methods with chargeback protections for large purchases. See tools for monetization and payment flows such as tools to monetize drops for practical guidance.
• Escalate complaints: File complaints with consumer protection agencies (e.g., AGCM in Italy, local authorities in your country) and the platform where you purchased the item.
• Demand transparency: As a community, vote with your wallet. Support publishers that demonstrate clear pricing and ethical monetization.

Predictions — what we'll see by the end of 2026

Based on current enforcement momentum and regulatory trends, expect the following by year‑end:

• More targeted investigations: National authorities across Europe will mirror the AGCM's playbook and may open parallel probes into multinational publishers.
• Platform policy tightening: Apple, Google, and major store fronts will further refine their in‑app purchase disclosure requirements and may demand in‑app refunds for certain purchase types. Watch coverage of platform policy shifts for updates.
• Standardized labels: Industry or regulators may push for standard labels showing "real cost per item" for common monetization vehicles (loot boxes, battle passes, boosters).
• Crowdfunding regulations: Platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter, and others will adopt stricter verification and refund protocols, and regulators will test whether commercial backers deserve full consumer protections.
• Litigation growth in the U.S.: Plaintiffs' firms will continue to file suits alleging misleading monetization — expect a spike in class actions seeking refunds and injunctive relief.

Case studies — lessons from real incidents

Two short examples illustrate the different but connected regulatory challenges:

1. Mobile F2P with opaque currency

A popular free‑to‑play title bundles gold flakes, diamond packs, and discounted "starter" bundles that appear cheaper than buying single units. Regulators focus on whether the bundles obscure the per‑unit cost and whether timers and social rewards create coercive pressure. The defense that "players choose to buy" is weaker when minors are shown targeted in‑game events with limited windows to buy.

2. Crowdfunded project with missed fulfillment

A tabletop game reaches stretch goals, the team delays shipping multiple times, and promised digital expansions never materialize. Backers petition the platform for refunds and file complaints with consumer agencies. The platform's passive stance draws regulator scrutiny for facilitating potential commercial sales without adequate oversight.

Conclusion — navigating the new reality

Regulation of in‑game monetization and crowdfunding is no longer theoretical — 2026 is the year enforcement scales from country‑level warnings to cross‑border investigations and concrete remedies. For publishers this means compliance is no longer optional; for players and backers it means new avenues for redress; and for platforms it spells responsibility and potential legal exposure.

Key takeaways

• Publishers: Audit, document, and redesign monetization to prioritize transparency and child safety.
• Platforms: Tighten onboarding, escrow practices, and dispute resolution for crowdfunding and in‑app sales.
• Players/backers: Keep records, file complaints when misled, and favor creators with clear, verifiable promises.

Resources & next steps

If you're a publisher or creator preparing for inquiries, start with these actions this week:

1. Run a 30‑day transparency audit of all purchase funnels and marketing assets.
2. Publish a clear refund policy and test it end‑to‑end.
3. Enable parental controls and set default low transaction limits for new accounts.
4. Prepare a compliance packet for regulators: product disclosures, experiment logs, and a public FAQ explaining monetization mechanics.

Call to action

Regulation is evolving fast — and the tabletop and game communities need to stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates on enforcement actions, legal precedents, and practical compliance guides. If you're a publisher, download our free "Monetization Compliance Checklist for 2026" and join our upcoming webinar where legal experts and designers will walk through redesign strategies that protect revenue without exposing you to legal risk.

Stay informed. Stay fair. Play on.

Related Reading

• News: Platform Policy Shifts and What Creators Must Do — January 2026 Update
• News & Analysis: Embedded Payments, Edge Orchestration, and the Economics of Rewrites (2026)
• Micro-Launch Playbook 2026: How Microcations, Pop‑Ups and Live Monetization Drive Rapid Product‑Market Fit
• Case Study: How a Local Shelter Raised $250K with a Serialized Micro‑Event Campaign
• Advanced Cashflow for Creator Sellers: Pricing to Capture Bargain Shoppers (2026)
• Implementing Creator Payments and Royalty Tracking for Uploaded Content
• Food Trucks Built Like Manufactured Homes: Designing Mobile Kitchens for Efficiency
• From Review to Revenue: How to Turn Product Testing Assignments into Portfolio Pieces
• Shed Ambience: Pairing Lighting Colors with Plant Displays and Storage Zones
• News Roundup: January 2026 — AI Assistants, Chip Shortages, New Edge AI HATs and Autonomous Tools