It was only a matter of time before someone in Brussels decided to look closely at the way video games sell things. In 2026, the European Commission confirmed it is moving against Call of Duty Mobile, Minecraft, and nine other titles that it says have failed to comply with the bloc's new microtransaction rules. The list is a who's-who of live-service gaming, and the companies behind it — Activision Blizzard, Mojang, and Ubisoft among them — now find themselves on the receiving end of a coordinated consumer-protection action.

So how did it get here? Back in 2025, the EU published the Key Principles on In-Game Virtual Currency, a framework drawn up by the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC Network). The principles were never subtle in their intent: clear real-world pricing, no cost-obscuring currency exchanges, and an end to forced bundle purchases. They were aimed squarely at the design tricks that make loot boxes and premium shops feel less expensive than they actually are.

The Eleven Games on the List

The Commission didn't mince words about why it picked these targets. According to the joint statement, "some video game business models and design practices harm consumers, especially vulnerable groups such as children." It added that players across Europe "should be able to play and interact with video games without being tricked into spending more money or time on video games than they want."

Here's who got named:

That's a remarkably broad spread — mobile puzzlers, a survival sandbox, a tactical shooter, and a medieval brawler all sitting in the same penalty box. It suggests the EU isn't targeting a single genre or business model, but the architecture of in-game spending itself.

What the Rules Actually Require

The CPC Network laid out the obligations these games will be held to. Publishers must:

• 💰 Provide clear and transparent pricing

• 🚫 Avoid obscuring real costs behind premium currencies

• 🛒 Avoid forcing players to buy currency they don't need

• 📋 Give clear information before a purchase is completed

• ↩️ Respect the consumer's right to withdraw

• 📜 Use fair, easy-to-understand terms

• 🛡️ Protect vulnerable consumers, particularly minors

The network also warned that other games with "aggressive microtransactions" should review their own policies before enforcement expands. In other words: you're next, and you know who you are.

The Industry Isn't Taking It Quietly

The European Game Developers Federation (EGDF) pushed back hard. In its response, the group noted that "since spring 2025, the industry has asked the CPC Network for the legal basis of their position, which they still have not shared." The federation argued that action against well-known studios isn't built on "clear and transparent" proposals, and that its members have tried to negotiate better solutions with EU committees — only to hit what it described as a "substantial disagreement."

At the heart of that disagreement is a definitional fight. The EU reportedly wants to treat currencies like Call of Duty Points as "digital representations of value" — effectively in the same category as crypto assets. Publishers, unsurprisingly, are not fans of that framing. After all, is a pile of CoD Points really a financial instrument, or is it just a coupon with extra steps?

What This Means for Players

For anyone grinding through a battle pass in Europe, the practical changes could be significant. If the action sticks, expect to see real-currency price tags sitting next to every skin, fewer "buy 1,000 coins to afford a 900-coin item" setups, and possibly the end of bundles that bundle things you never asked for. Some studios may simply rework their stores before regulators come knocking.

But the EGDF's complaint raises a fair question: can you enforce consumer-protection law against a business model without first agreeing on what the law covers? The Commission clearly thinks so. Whether a court agrees is another matter entirely.

One thing seems certain — the era of the opaque premium currency is running out of runway in Europe. Publishers can argue about legal basis, but the political pressure is real, and the list of named games is long enough to make the rest of the industry nervous. If you run a live-service title with a storefront full of gem packs and time-limited bundles, now might be the moment to read the Key Principles carefully.

After all, if the EU is willing to name Minecraft — Minecraft! — then nobody is too big to escape the spreadsheet.