PolicyGamingOpinion

The Legal Fight Against Predatory Game Design: What Regulators Could Do Next

UUnknown

2026-02-16

10 min read

After Italy’s AGCM probe, policymakers can curb predatory game design with disclosures, spending caps, age checks and UX bans—here’s how it shifts publishers and esports.

Hook: Why fans, parents and tournament directors should care right now

Players, parents and pro teams are tired of aggressive monetization and reputations after manipulative UX designs. If you follow player news across mobile games and competitive scenes, you already know the pain: unexpected charges, opaque virtual-currency bundles, and in-game mechanics built to keep minors glued to their screens. Regulators are finally acting—most recently Italy’s Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) opened investigations in early 2026 into Activision Blizzard’s mobile titles for “misleading and aggressive” practices—so the question isn’t whether policy will change, it’s how.

Topline: What the AGCM probe signals and why 2026 is different

The AGCM investigations focus on UX elements that prolong play and nudge purchases, unclear virtual-currency value, and bundled in-game currency sold in ways that may mislead consumers—including minors. The regulator’s statement warned these practices can cause significant spending without users fully understanding the cost implications (AGCM, Jan 2026).

“These practices… may influence players as consumers — including minors — leading them to spend significant amounts, sometimes exceeding what is necessary to progress in the game and without being fully aware of the expenditure involved.” — AGCM press release, Jan 2026

That investigation sits inside a clear 2024–2026 trend: policymakers and consumer-protection agencies worldwide are moving from permissive oversight to prescriptive rules. Past examples—Belgium’s 2018 determination that some loot boxes meet gambling definitions and China’s youth play/spending limits—show regulators will combine consumer law and child-protection measures. What’s new in 2026 is the willingness to target UX design itself as an unfair commercial practice, not just individual transactions.

Policy tools regulators are most likely to use next

Below are the practical policy options regulators could deploy, how each would work in practice, and the real implications for publishers, players and competitive scenes.

1) Mandatory disclosure and transparent pricing

What it is: Require games to show clear, standardized disclosures for virtual currencies, randomized rewards and time-limited offers. Disclosures would include exact real-money equivalent for currency bundles, odds for randomized rewards, and the absolute price per item—not just bundle names.

How it would work: Standardized, front-loaded labels (e.g., “1000 Gems = €9.99; 1 Rare Skin = 0.5% chance”) shown on purchase screens and store listings. Regulators could mandate uniform iconography and a short, plain-language explanation of what a purchase delivers.

Impact on publishers: Short-term friction to conversion and potential downward pressure on impulse sales. Publishers will need to redesign store UIs, update backend pricing logic, and catalog virtual goods with canonical real-money values. Expect legal and compliance costs, but also longer-term reputational gains. Some teams may look to alternative revenue such as immersive-event monetization or sponsored activations to offset near-term losses.

Impact on competitive scenes: Better clarity reduces disputes over in-game item value and makes sponsorship valuations for cosmetic items more straightforward. Secondary marketplaces and skin-driven betting will face clearer valuation baselines.

2) Purchase limits and spending controls

What it is: Enforced spending caps (daily/weekly/monthly) for accounts—especially accounts identified as minors—or default account-level cool-off periods after large purchases. Limits can be set by law or required as default options with easy opt-in for adults.

How it would work: Platforms implement limits tied to age verification or parental controls. Publishers must provide real-time spending dashboards and hard stops once caps are reached. Regulators could allow adaptive caps: higher limits for verified adults, lower for unverified or minor accounts.

Impact on publishers: Predictable but lower short-term revenue from high-spending users (whales). Some monetization models relying on rare super-spenders will need redesign. Publishers may shift to subscription or battle-pass models, or increase focus on non-monetized engagement metrics.

Impact on competitive scenes: Reduced influence of microtransaction-driven advantages in progression-based esports; more even playing fields where skill matters more. For titles where cosmetics influence psychological pressure, reduced purchases could lower sponsorship values tied to exclusive cosmetics.

3) Robust, privacy-preserving age verification

What it is: Require proof-of-age measures to distinguish minors from adults for purchasing, exposure to limited-time mechanics, and to restrict certain features (e.g., randomized loot that regulators deem addictive).

How it would work: Regulators could set technical standards—third-party verification, federated identity, or privacy-preserving methods like zero-knowledge proofs to confirm age without sharing sensitive data. Compliance would be mandatory for publishers distributing in the jurisdiction.

Impact on publishers: Implementation costs and potential new friction for user acquisition. Publishers operating globally will need geofencing, distinct flows, and compliance monitoring. But robust age-checks can also protect firms from liability and build parental trust.

Impact on competitive scenes: Youth leagues and amateur circuits may become more regulated; age-gating could reduce underage involvement in betting markets tied to in-game items, and could improve child-safety policies in esports events.

4) UX restrictions and bans on manipulative mechanics

What it is: Prohibit or constrain specific user-experience design patterns—so-called “dark patterns”—that exploit cognitive biases (e.g., intermittent rewards, countdown scarcity that resets, misleading progress bars, disguised charges). Regulators can define categories of banned mechanics and require UX audits.

How it would work: Rulebooks would list practices that are presumed unfair (e.g., hidden costs, misleading timers). Publishers would need to submit UX audits and automated compliance checks and CE-style safety checks, or face fines and mandated remediation.

Impact on publishers: Deepest product-level changes. Games might remove or alter mechanics that drive engagement to monetize. This could reduce average session length and modify retention funnels—forcing product teams to find healthier engagement levers.

Impact on competitive scenes: UX-driven spectator hooks (like rare, time-limited drops tied to live events) might become restricted. Tournament organizers and broadcasters will adapt by emphasizing skill-based drama and conventional sponsorships over monetized event mechanics.

5) Reporting, auditability and penalties

What it is: Ongoing compliance requirements: regular reporting to regulators on monetization metrics, independent UX compliance audits, consumer-complaint response protocols, and scalable penalties for violations.

How it would work: Publishers must maintain transaction logs, provide user-expenditure summaries on request, and cooperate with consumer authorities. Penalties could include fines, product restrictions, or distribution bans in jurisdictions.

Impact on publishers: Increased operational complexity, especially for cross-border titles. Smaller studios may need support via industry associations or safe-harbor arrangements to meet compliance costs.

Crafting practical regulation: a phased, evidence-led approach

Regulators should avoid one-size-fits-all rules. Here’s a pragmatic path that balances consumer protection with innovation:

Phase 1 — Transparency and monitoring: Require clear disclosure of currency value and randomized odds, plus mandated reporting to regulators on spend patterns broken down by verified-age cohort.
Phase 2 — Targeted restrictions: If Phase 1 monitoring shows harm (e.g., excessive spending by minors), apply purchase limits, default cooling-off periods, and age-gating for randomized mechanics.
Phase 3 — UX audits and enforcement: Mandate UX audits against a published list of banned manipulative patterns, plus graduated penalties for noncompliance.

Each phase should be accompanied by a clear set of KPIs: declines in average spending by minors, reduction in reported billing disputes, improved clarity scores on consumer surveys, and no negative impact on competitive fairness. Regulators should pilot changes in sandboxes with small studios before scaling to AAA publishers.

How publishers should prepare (actionable playbook)

Publishers face operational and product risks—but also an opportunity to rebuild trust and sustainability. Here are immediate steps product, legal and esports teams should take:

Conduct an internal UX risk audit against dark-pattern lists and prepare mitigation roadmaps with timelines.
Implement transparent pricing now: show real-money equivalents, itemized receipts, and “spent-to-date” dashboards.
Design opt-in advanced monetization that requires explicit adult consent—don’t rely on hidden defaults.
Build privacy-first age verification and parental-control features; partner with vetted third-party KYC providers supporting minimal data disclosure.
Diversify revenue: accelerate subscriptions, battle passes, sponsorships, and B2B licensing to reduce exposure to uncertain microtransaction revenue.
Engage regulators and consumer groups proactively—join standard-setting forums to shape practical rules rather than face one-size mandates. Consider collaborating with platform teams and publishers focused on fan engagement and transparent community incentives.

How esports organizers and rights-holders should respond

Competitive ecosystems are vulnerable to ripple effects. Organizers, teams and tournament sponsors should act now to stabilize the scene:

Audit in-game economies used in competition to remove or neutralize mechanics that could distort competition.
Recalculate sponsorship valuations that currently rely on exclusive cosmetic drops tied to event attendance; replace them with guaranteed branded rewards or non-random perks.
Strengthen anti-corruption and betting oversight to account for changing secondary market dynamics in skins and virtual goods—work with specialists monitoring NFT and hybrid-drop markets.
Update youth participation rules to align with new age-verification regimes and parental-consent best practices.

Consumer-side playbook: what parents, players and fans can do today

Until regulators act, there are practical steps consumers can take to protect wallets and reputations:

Enable platform-level parental controls and set spending caps on app stores.
Use prepaid cards or separate wallets with fixed balances for in-game purchases to limit exposure.
Require family-level approval for purchases above a threshold and keep receipts tied to a single account.
Report misleading practices to consumer protection authorities and keep evidence of opaque bundles or disguised charges. Also monitor evolving crypto and secondary-market compliance guidance that can affect skin markets.

Expected industry shifts and second-order effects

If regulators adopt the tools above, expect the following market changes through 2026–2028:

Revenue mix shift: Less dependence on whale-driven revenue in mobile games. Growth in subscriptions and season-based monetization.
UX renaissance: Investment in fair-engagement mechanics—more emphasis on skill retention curves, social features and non-manipulative rewards.
Consolidation pressure: Smaller studios may struggle with compliance costs, accelerating mergers or partnerships with platform holders.
Cleaner competitive scenes: Reduced in-game pay-to-progress advantages and more transparent sponsorship plays for cosmetics and merchandising.
Secondary market stabilization: Clear valuation standards for in-game goods will dampen speculative betting and fraud linked to skin markets.

Where regulation can go wrong—and how to avoid it

Heavy-handed rules can backfire. Regulators should avoid blunt instruments that: ban entire monetization models without evidence, require invasive data collection, or create compliance burdens that entrench incumbents. Instead, adopt proportionate, evidence-based measures with sunset clauses and review mechanisms.

Key safeguards:

Use pilot programs and sandboxes to test requirements before broad application.
Mandate privacy-preserving age checks, not raw data harvests.
Offer scaled compliance pathways for indie studios and small publishers.
Set clear standards for what constitutes a banned UX practice and provide remediation windows.

Final analysis: a roadmap to healthier games and fairer competition

The AGCM’s 2026 investigations mark a turning point: regulators are no longer satisfied with labeling games as “free” while leaving consumer protection to platform terms and parental controls. The options above—disclosure rules, purchase limits, age verification and UX restrictions—are not mutually exclusive. Paired and phased properly, they can curb the most predatory practices while preserving creative monetization and competitive vitality.

For publishers, the immediate imperative is practical compliance: transparency, privacy-first age checks, and UX redesigns that prioritize informed consent. For esports organizers and rights-holders, the mandate is to insulate competition from monetization shocks and to reprice sponsorships for a more transparent in-game economy. For regulators, the task is to write rules that are targeted, evidence-based, and adaptable—because gaming changes quickly.

Actionable takeaways

Regulators: Start with disclosure mandates and monitoring; escalate to limits and UX audits only if data shows harm.
Publishers: Implement transparent pricing and privacy-preserving age verification now; run UX audits and diversify revenue streams.
Esports stakeholders: Reassess sponsorship and anti-corruption policies; adopt age-aligned participation rules.
Consumers: Use parental controls, set spending caps, and report deceptive practices to authorities.

Call to action

If you work in publishing, regulation, or esports, now is the time to act. Start by running a compliance and UX risk audit this quarter, publish a transparency roadmap and engage with consumer protection authorities to shape practical rules. Fans and parents: demand clearer pricing and stronger parental controls. Regulators: publish pilot standards that protect kids and consumers without stifling game innovation. The future of healthy games and fair competition depends on policymakers and the industry choosing solutions that protect players and preserve play.

Unknown

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.