Italian Regulators Investigate Activision Blizzard's Monetization Practices [2025]

Introduction: When Regulators Finally Notice the Cash Grab

It's 2025, and something interesting just happened. The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) opened formal investigations into two of Microsoft's biggest mobile games: Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile. On the surface, this might seem like just another regulatory action—the kind of bureaucratic thing that happens quietly in Brussels or Rome without anyone paying attention.

But here's why this matters: this investigation represents a fundamental shift in how governments are thinking about video game monetization. For years, the industry has operated in a kind of regulatory gray zone. Mobile games rake in billions through predatory mechanics, and while consumer advocacy groups have complained, enforcement has been scattered and ineffective. Now, major regulatory bodies are starting to take this seriously.

The AGCM's allegations are specific and damaging. They're not just saying Activision Blizzard makes games that generate a lot of revenue. They're alleging the company uses "misleading and aggressive practices" designed to manipulate players into spending money they might not otherwise spend. The investigation focuses on deceptive user interface design, aggressive push notifications, confusing virtual currency systems, and permissive default parental controls that allow unlimited spending and play time.

This isn't theoretical. There's a documented case of a player spending $100,000 on Diablo Immortal alone. While that's an extreme outlier, it illustrates exactly what regulators are worried about: systems designed not just to monetize, but to extract maximum value from vulnerable players.

What makes this investigation particularly significant is the precedent it sets. If Italian regulators successfully establish that these practices violate consumer protection laws, it opens the door for similar actions across Europe, the United States, and potentially worldwide. The European Union's existing regulatory framework—particularly around consumer rights and unfair commercial practices—gives regulators significant ammunition.

For Activision Blizzard, this is a real problem. Microsoft didn't acquire the company to get bogged down in regulatory investigations. For the broader gaming industry, this signals that the era of completely unregulated monetization is ending. And for players, this might actually mean change.

Let's dig into what's actually happening here, why it matters, and what comes next.

The AGCM's investigation focuses on several key issues, with confusing virtual currency systems rated as the most severe due to their impact on transparent pricing. Estimated data.

TL; DR

• Italian Competition Authority opened investigations into Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile over aggressive monetization practices
• Core allegations include deceptive UI design, misleading virtual currency systems, and aggressive push notifications designed to encourage spending
• Default parental controls are too permissive, allowing unlimited in-game purchases and unrestricted play time by default
• Potential violations of EU consumer protection laws, including interference with the 14-day right of withdrawal
• This investigation sets precedent for regulatory action against predatory game monetization across Europe

Diablo Immortal generated an estimated

What Exactly Is the Italian Competition Authority Investigating?

The AGCM isn't some obscure regional regulator. It's Italy's equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission, with actual enforcement power and a mandate to protect consumers and competition. When they open an investigation, people need to pay attention.

The investigation centers on two specific games: Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile. Both are free-to-play titles that generate enormous revenue despite being technically "free." Diablo Immortal generated an estimated $100 million in revenue in its first year. Call of Duty: Mobile has been consistently profitable since launch.

But it's not the revenue itself that triggered the investigation. It's how the games generate that revenue.

The Deceptive UI Design Angle

The AGCM alleges that both games use deliberately confusing interface design to encourage spending. This isn't subtle stuff. We're talking about dark patterns, misleading prompts, and design choices that prioritize monetization over player clarity.

Here's what that looks like in practice: A player opens Diablo Immortal and gets prompted about a limited-time item. The prompt makes it seem urgent—the item will disappear in 24 hours. The button to purchase is visually prominent and bright, while the button to skip or decline is small or hidden. The exact wording used in the prompt is designed to create urgency and fear of missing out.

Then there's the virtual currency obfuscation. When you want to buy something, you're not spending dollars. You're spending "Eternal Orbs" or whatever the game calls its premium currency. This creates psychological distance between the player and the actual cash they're spending. The player thinks in terms of orbs, gems, or whatever, not real money. It makes the spending feel less real.

These design patterns are well-documented in behavioral psychology. Companies use them deliberately because they work. By creating confusion about actual costs and using visual manipulation to drive clicks, games encourage impulse spending that players might regret later.

The AGCM is arguing that this constitutes misleading commercial practice under EU law. They're not just saying it's annoying—they're saying it violates specific consumer protection statutes.

Push Notifications and Aggressive Reminders

Both games send push notifications designed to drive players back into the game and encourage spending. These notifications arrive during gameplay and outside gameplay, at times designed to maximize engagement.

This is where the investigation gets interesting from a regulatory standpoint. There's a difference between "here's a new event happening" and "you're about to miss out on a limited-time exclusive reward that you can only get by spending money right now." The AGCM is alleging that Activision Blizzard crosses that line regularly.

Push notifications can become harassing. Imagine getting five notifications per day, each one designed to create urgency around spending money. For vulnerable players—particularly younger players who don't fully understand the financial implications—this crosses from persuasion into coercion.

Virtual Currency Complexity

Here's a trick that's been endemic in mobile gaming for years: never let players know exactly how much they're spending. Activision Blizzard doesn't break down costs in simple dollars and cents. Instead, players deal with layered virtual currencies.

Some currency is earned through gameplay. Some is purchased with real money. Some is purchased in bundles that make it hard to calculate per-item cost. Some currency expires or is limited to specific purposes. It's intentionally confusing.

When a player buys a bundle of 2,400 Eternal Orbs for $19.99, they don't immediately understand whether that's expensive or cheap. Then when they try to buy something specific, they learn they need 2,750 orbs. They can't use the exact amount they purchased. They have to buy another bundle. It's engineered confusion designed to make players spend more than they planned.

The AGCM is arguing this violates regulations around clear pricing and honest commercial practices.

Understanding Free-to-Play Monetization: The Broader Context

To understand why the AGCM is taking action, you need to understand how free-to-play games actually work. It's not a business model that appeared naturally—it's the result of decades of incremental optimization toward maximum monetization.

How Free-to-Play Actually Works

Free-to-play games operate on a simple principle: most players spend nothing. A small percentage of players spend money. An even smaller percentage spend massive amounts of money. The business model is built around extracting as much value as possible from that last group.

Game designers talk about "whale hunting." A whale is a player who spends significant money on a game. The entire monetization system is designed to identify, attract, and extract maximum value from whales. Everyone else? They're basically marketing material. Free players generate content, provide multiplayer opponents, and make the game feel alive. But the money comes from whales.

Diablo Immortal, specifically, was designed from the ground up with monetization in mind. It's not a game that happens to have monetization systems bolted on. Every mechanic, every progression system, every reward structure is designed to create friction that can be resolved with money.

Loot boxes are the primary tool here. In Diablo Immortal, you don't just kill demons and find equipment. You kill demons, find loot boxes, open them for random rewards, and frequently discover that you'd rather spend money for a guaranteed reward than gamble on a random drop. The game is carefully tuned so that free players progress slowly enough that spending money becomes appealing.

The Psychology of Virtual Currency

Virtual currency serves a specific psychological purpose. When you hand someone

This is documented behavioral economics. People spend more when paying with points, tokens, virtual currency, or gift cards than when spending equivalent cash. It's why casinos use chips instead of cash. The abstraction layer reduces psychological resistance.

Activision Blizzard isn't unique in using this tactic—it's industry standard. But it's still deceptive if it's not transparent about what's happening.

The Progression Treadmill

Free-to-play games intentionally create progression systems that feel rewarding but slow. Players want to advance their character, climb leaderboards, or collect items. The game provides that progression at a rate that's psychologically satisfying for free players, but tempts them constantly with faster progression through spending.

It's not accidental. There's an entire profession called "monetization designer" devoted to precisely tuning these systems. These designers work to find the exact speed of progression that keeps free players engaged without offering them too much value for free.

The goal is to create a psychological state where spending money feels not just optional, but necessary. If you're a competitive player, you need to spend money to keep up. If you're a completionist, you need to spend to collect everything. If you're casual, you hit progression walls that either require patience or money.

In free-to-play games, approximately 80% of players spend nothing, 15% spend small amounts, and 5% are 'whales' who contribute the majority of revenue. (Estimated data)

The Specific Allegations Against Activision Blizzard

Let's break down exactly what the AGCM is accusing Activision Blizzard of doing. These aren't vague complaints. They're specific, documented practices.

Misleading UI Design

The first major allegation involves deliberately confusing interface design. This includes buttons that prioritize purchases over other actions, prompts that misrepresent urgency, and systems designed to make spending feel accidental or inevitable.

In Diablo Immortal, for example, players encounter daily login rewards. These rewards are often presented as urgent incentives—limited-time items that will disappear if not claimed soon. The UI is designed to make purchase options highly visible while making "skip" or "decline" options difficult to find.

Call of Duty: Mobile uses similar tactics. Events are presented with artificial scarcity. Rewards are presented as time-limited. Battle passes are presented with countdown timers specifically designed to create urgency around purchase decisions.

The AGCM is alleging that this violates the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which prohibits aggressive commercial practices that distort consumer decision-making.

Aggressive Push Notifications

Both games bombard players with notifications designed to drive engagement and spending. These notifications have specific characteristics that make them effective and aggressive:

Frequency: Players receive multiple notifications per day.

Timing: Notifications are timed during moments when players are likely to be receptive—often during or immediately after play sessions.

Urgency language: Notifications use language designed to create fear of missing out. "Offer ends in 2 hours!" "Limited quantity available!" "Don't miss this exclusive reward!"

Personalization: Notifications are personalized based on player behavior, sent at times and with content designed specifically for individual player psychology.

For vulnerable players, especially younger ones, these notifications can feel mandatory rather than optional. The constant stream of urgency can trigger compulsive engagement.

Virtual Currency Obfuscation

The AGCM specifically calls out the complexity of virtual currency systems as a deliberate tactic to obscure real-world costs. Players deal with multiple currency types, bundle pricing that doesn't align with specific purchases, and currency that expires or has limited uses.

When a player wants to buy a specific item that costs 2,750 gems, but the only bundle available contains 2,400 gems (with a discounted larger bundle forcing them to buy too much), the player ends up spending more than they planned. This isn't accidental—it's engineered.

Confusing Parental Controls

The AGCM also alleges that default parental control settings are too permissive. By default, children can make unlimited in-game purchases. Play time is unlimited by default. Parental control settings exist, but they're not the default—players have to actively opt into protecting their children from spending.

This is particularly important in European regulatory context. The EU is increasingly focused on protecting minors from exploitative practices. Having permissive defaults that allow children to spend money without parental consent is viewed as especially problematic.

Violations of Consumer Rights

The AGCM also raised concerns about violations of the EU's 14-day right of withdrawal. Under EU law, consumers have 14 days to cancel digital purchases and receive refunds. But mobile games often bury this right or make it difficult to exercise.

If a player buys in-game currency or a battle pass and then wants a refund, they should be able to get one. But mobile games often make this process difficult or explicitly refuse refunds for virtual goods. The AGCM is alleging that this violates consumer protection laws.

The Diablo Immortal Specific Issues

Diablo Immortal deserves special attention because it's been particularly controversial around monetization practices. The game launched in 2022 to significant backlash over its monetization systems.

The $100,000 Player Incident

One player famously reported spending $100,000 on Diablo Immortal. While this is an extreme outlier, it illustrates exactly what regulators are concerned about. The game's progression systems are designed in ways that make unlimited spending possible and psychologically tempting.

Legendary gems, the primary item players pursue, require resources that can be obtained through gameplay or accelerated through spending. A player can farm them slowly through repeated dungeon runs, or spend money to accelerate the process. There's no hard cap on spending—if you want the best gear, you can always spend more.

The AGCM is arguing that this crosses from monetization into exploitation. The game doesn't say "you can only spend $10 per month." It just keeps accepting money indefinitely, with the design specifically engineered to normalize continuous spending.

Battle Pass Mechanics

Diablo Immortal uses battle pass systems similar to Fortnite or Call of Duty. Players pay for a pass and unlock rewards by playing. The free version offers limited rewards. The paid version offers more.

But here's where it gets problematic: seasonal rewards rotate. If you miss this season's battle pass, you miss those rewards permanently. The AGCM is arguing that this artificial scarcity and fear of missing out are designed to pressure players into spending before the season ends.

Legendary Item Hunting

The core progression in Diablo Immortal revolves around legendary items. These have randomized stats. Players want the perfect roll on their favorite item. The only way to get perfect rolls is to either farm dungeons thousands of times (taking months) or spend money to speed up the process.

This creates an endless spending treadmill. There's always another legendary item to hunt, another stat optimization to chase, another reason to spend.

Estimated data shows both Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile employ aggressive notification tactics, with high ratings in frequency, timing, urgency language, and personalization.

The EU Regulatory Framework: Why This Investigation Matters

Understanding the legal framework is crucial to understanding why this investigation is significant. The EU has specific laws that Activision Blizzard is alleged to have violated.

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

The core law here is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), adopted in 2005. It prohibits a broad range of unfair commercial practices, including aggressive ones that distort consumer decision-making.

Under the UCPD, it's illegal to use aggressive sales tactics. Aggressive is defined as undermining a consumer's ability to make an informed decision through harassment, coercion, or undue influence.

The AGCM is arguing that constant push notifications, artificial urgency, and deliberately confusing UI design constitute aggressive commercial practices under this definition.

Consumer Rights Directive

The Consumer Rights Directive establishes baseline protections for digital purchases. It mandates clear information about pricing, clear right of withdrawal, and prohibition on unfair contract terms.

The AGCM is arguing that the virtual currency system violates clarity requirements, and that the difficulty in exercising refund rights violates the right of withdrawal.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Implications

While not the primary focus of this investigation, GDPR also factors in. Game companies collect extensive data about player behavior and use it to optimize monetization systems. Some of this data collection and use may violate GDPR consent requirements, particularly regarding minors.

The Online Harms Bill and Similar Legislation

Beyond just the UCPD, many European countries have adopted or are developing additional legislation specifically addressing online harms, dark patterns, and manipulative design. The UK, for instance, has been working on online safety legislation that specifically addresses manipulative design in games.

The AGCM investigation is happening in this broader context of increased regulatory focus on digital manipulation.

The Broader Context: Why Regulators Are Moving on Gaming Monetization Now

This investigation didn't happen in a vacuum. It's part of a broader regulatory awakening around digital manipulation and predatory monetization.

Growing Consumer Advocacy

Consumer groups and child protection advocates have been pushing for investigation into mobile game monetization for years. Organizations focused on protecting children from exploitative practices have documented how games use psychological manipulation to extract money from vulnerable players.

This advocacy finally started resonating with regulators in 2024 and 2025. When enough people complain and show concrete harm, regulators eventually act.

The Rise of Digital Responsibility

Governments worldwide are increasingly taking responsibility for regulating how technology companies manipulate users. This has manifested in various ways: antitrust action against tech giants, regulation of social media algorithms, and now, action against manipulative game monetization.

The principle is straightforward: if a company's business model fundamentally depends on manipulating users, regulators should examine whether that violates existing laws.

Mental Health and Addiction Concerns

There's growing evidence that mobile games deliberately exploit psychological vulnerabilities. The constant dopamine hits, the variable rewards, the social pressure, and the spending loops all contribute to addictive patterns similar to gambling.

Mental health advocates have been pushing regulators to treat predatory mobile game mechanics similarly to how they treat gambling. Some countries are already considering this. If mobile games are gambling, they should face gambling regulations.

Youth Protection as Political Priority

Protecting children from harmful digital practices has become a political priority across Europe. This creates pressure on regulators to take action against games that specifically target or enable spending by minors.

The fact that Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile are played by children, and their monetization systems include permissive default parental controls that allow child spending, puts them directly in regulators' sights.

Diablo Immortal's monetization practices allow for significant spending, with legendary gems and general spending having the highest potential. Estimated data based on reported incidents and typical game mechanics.

The Industry Context: Is Activision Blizzard Unique or Representative?

Here's the uncomfortable truth: Activision Blizzard isn't unique. The practices under investigation are industry standard. Most major mobile games use similar tactics.

Industry Standard Practices

The dark patterns, the aggressive notifications, the virtual currency obfuscation, the artificial urgency—these are standard practice across the mobile gaming industry. Epic Games uses them in Fortnite. Tencent uses them in Honor of Kings. Glu Mobile uses them in virtually everything they make.

What makes Activision Blizzard's case significant isn't that they're uniquely bad. It's that they're high-profile enough that regulators are paying attention. This investigation could set precedent for action against the entire industry.

The Free-to-Play Business Model Pressure

Free-to-play games are under intense pressure to monetize aggressively. Investors expect explosive growth. Player acquisition costs are high. The only way to achieve the expected returns is through aggressive monetization.

This creates a perverse incentive structure where companies that monetize most aggressively win, and those that try to be more consumer-friendly fall behind financially. It's a race to the bottom.

Regulation could break this cycle. If all companies face the same restrictions, the competitive advantage disappears. Companies can maintain profitability without competing on how exploitative their systems can be.

Why This Matters for the Industry

If the AGCM successfully proves that these practices violate EU law, it opens the door to enforcement action against the entire industry. We're not talking about a small fine—we're talking about fundamental changes to how mobile games monetize.

This could mean:

• Mandatory clear pricing in real currency with no hidden costs
• Restrictions on artificial urgency in marketing and notifications
• Default opt-out for spending and aggressive notifications
• Transparency requirements around spending incentives
• Age verification for age-appropriate content
• Spending caps for minors

These changes would fundamentally alter the mobile gaming business model. That's why this investigation matters so much to the industry.

Potential Outcomes and Consequences for Activision Blizzard

So what actually happens if the AGCM finds violations? Let's talk about the realistic outcomes.

Financial Penalties

Under EU competition law, fines can reach up to 10% of global revenue. For Microsoft, that could be several billion dollars. While that's large, Microsoft has the financial capacity to absorb it. It's not going to bankrupt the company or even cause serious financial distress.

But it sends a message. And if similar investigations happen in other jurisdictions, the cumulative penalties become more serious.

Required Practice Changes

The AGCM could order Activision Blizzard to change specific practices. This might include:

• Removing certain dark pattern UI elements
• Changing parental control defaults
• Implementing spending caps
• Providing clearer pricing information
• Reducing notification frequency
• Making refund processes easier

These changes would reduce monetization, which is the real concern for Activision Blizzard from a business perspective.

Broader Industry Impact

If the AGCM succeeds, expect similar investigations from other European regulators. Germany's Bundeskartellamt, France's DGCCRF, and the UK's CMA might all look at similar games using similar analysis.

Over time, this could establish precedent that certain monetization practices violate consumer protection law. That would require industry-wide changes.

Precedent for Other Jurisdictions

If Europe moves first, other regions may follow. The United States doesn't have equivalent regulatory bodies, but Congress is increasingly interested in digital protection issues. If the EU successfully regulates game monetization, it might inspire similar action in the US.

The Federal Trade Commission has already shown interest in dark patterns and manipulative design. A successful EU precedent could accelerate US action.

Estimated data suggests that aggressive monetization practices are common across major mobile gaming companies, with Tencent leading slightly. Estimated data.

What This Means for Players

From a player perspective, this investigation is potentially good news. Here's what could change:

More Transparency

Players would get clearer information about what they're spending. Pricing would be in real currency, not abstract currency units. Bundle pricing would be transparent. The actual cost of items would be immediately clear.

This alone would likely reduce spending. People spend more money when they're not thinking about it in terms of real currency.

Fewer Aggressive Notifications

The constant push notifications designed to create urgency could be restricted. Games would still be able to notify players about events, but not in ways designed to manipulate.

For players who find these notifications annoying or triggering, this would be a substantial improvement.

Better Parental Controls

Default parental controls that prevent child spending would become standard. Parents wouldn't have to opt in to protecting their kids—it would be the default. Kids could still spend money, but only if parents explicitly allow it.

Easier Refunds

The 14-day right of withdrawal would actually be honored. Players could buy something, realize they don't want it, and get their money back easily. No more fighting with support teams.

More Ethical Design

When all companies face the same restrictions, design can become less exploitative. Designers could make games that are genuinely fun without constantly trying to extract money. It would actually create better games.

The Defense: What Activision Blizzard Will Likely Argue

Activision Blizzard won't go quietly. They'll mount a defense. Here's what they'll likely argue:

Players Consent to These Systems

Activision Blizzard will argue that players voluntarily accept the monetization systems by playing. Nobody is forced to play Diablo Immortal. If players don't like the monetization, they can play something else.

The AGCM will counter that consent requires informed decision-making, and that the UI design and information practices prevent informed consent.

This Is Standard Industry Practice

Activision Blizzard will argue that their monetization practices are standard across the industry. They're not doing anything unique. Picking them out for enforcement is unfair.

The AGCM will counter that industry standard practice that violates consumer law should be addressed industry-wide, and this investigation is the first step.

Players Aren't Obligated to Spend

Activision Blizzard will emphasize that spending is optional. The games are fully playable without spending money. Spending is purely to accelerate progression or access cosmetics.

The AGCM will counter that psychological pressure to spend, created through game design and marketing, makes spending less truly optional than that framing suggests.

The $100,000 Player Chose to Spend

Activision Blizzard will argue that if someone spends $100,000, that's their choice. The game doesn't force anyone to spend. If players spend more than they can afford, that's a personal finance issue, not a game design issue.

The AGCM will counter that game design deliberately tempts players to spend beyond their means, and that enabling this violates consumer protection principles.

Regulatory Precedent: Similar Actions Around the World

The Italian investigation isn't the first regulatory scrutiny on mobile game monetization. There's precedent.

China's Regulations on Loot Boxes

China requires companies to disclose loot box odds. Players must know the probability of getting each reward. This is rooted in the belief that users have a right to know what they're gambling for.

If similar regulations came to Europe and the US, it would significantly change mobile game design.

Belgium's Gambling Classification

Belgium classified loot boxes as gambling. The Belgian gambling regulatory body determined that randomized rewards obtained through payment meet the legal definition of gambling, and therefore loot boxes should be regulated as gambling.

If other countries adopt similar classification, it would bring massive regulatory change to mobile gaming.

Apple's App Store Transparency Requirements

Apple now requires that apps disclose odds for loot boxes and randomized purchases. It's not a legal requirement—it's an App Store policy. But it indicates that even companies in the industry are recognizing that transparency is important.

Legal Challenges and Consumer Complaints

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against mobile game companies over monetization practices. While these haven't yet resulted in major victories, they've established the framework for how these cases will be litigated.

The Timeline: What Happens Next in This Investigation

The investigation is open, but it's not instant. Here's what likely happens:

Phase One: Evidence Gathering (Current)

The AGCM is gathering evidence about how the games actually work. They're examining UI design, notification patterns, spending data, and consumer complaints.

This phase typically takes 3-6 months. During this time, game companies can submit their responses.

Phase Two: Formal Charges (Likely Mid-2025)

If the AGCM finds sufficient evidence of violations, they'll issue formal charges. This gives Activision Blizzard the opportunity to defend itself in a formal proceeding.

Phase Three: Decision and Remedies (2025-2026)

The AGCM will make a final decision about whether violations occurred and what remedies are appropriate.

Phase Four: Potential Appeals

Activision Blizzard can appeal the decision to Italian courts if they disagree.

The entire process from opening to final decision typically takes 12-24 months.

Broader Questions This Investigation Raises

Beyond the specifics of Activision Blizzard, this investigation raises bigger questions about digital commerce and player protection.

Should Games Be Regulated Like Gambling?

If games deliberately manipulate players into spending money through psychological tactics, are they functionally gambling? Should they face gambling regulations?

This is a philosophical and legal question with major implications for the entire industry.

How Do We Balance Player Agency and Protection?

Players have agency—they choose to play and choose to spend. But that choice happens within systems designed to manipulate it. How do regulators balance respecting player choice with protecting players from exploitation?

What Level of Transparency Is Required?

Should players have to understand the exact probability of loot box rewards? Should they see spending patterns? Should they see time spent in the game? These transparency questions will define regulation going forward.

Who Bears Responsibility?

Is it the game company's responsibility not to create exploitative systems? Is it the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's spending? Is it the player's responsibility to exercise restraint? Regulatory frameworks will determine where responsibility lies.

The Industry Future: If Regulation Takes Hold

If the AGCM investigation results in significant findings against Activision Blizzard and leads to broader regulation, what happens to mobile gaming?

Business Model Evolution

If aggressive monetization becomes impossible, companies need alternative revenue models. Subscription-based models might become more common. Battle passes with spending caps. Cosmetics that don't affect gameplay. Lower overall monetization but more sustainable long-term.

This would actually be better for both players and long-term business sustainability. Many free-to-play games burn out quickly because they over-monetize and lose players. More sustainable models would create better games.

Designer Incentives Change

Right now, monetization designers are incentivized to be as exploitative as possible. If that changes, design becomes focused on fun and engagement rather than extraction. Game designers could make games they're proud of rather than systems specifically designed to manipulate.

Market Dynamics Shift

Companies that build more ethical games would no longer be at a competitive disadvantage. The race to the bottom stops. Companies can compete on fun, innovation, and quality rather than on how exploitative their monetization is.

New Entrants Become Viable

Smaller studios that have been priced out of the free-to-play market by giants with sophisticated monetization could become competitive again. Lower monetization pressure means smaller studios could compete.

What Players Should Do Right Now

If you play Diablo Immortal, Call of Duty: Mobile, or other monetized mobile games, here's what makes sense:

Monitor Your Spending

Access your purchase history. See how much you've actually spent. Many players are shocked when they add it up. If you're uncomfortable with the number, take action.

Set Spending Limits

Don't rely on willpower. Many mobile platforms allow you to set spending limits. Use these. Make them real and enforce them.

Check Parental Controls

If you have kids who play games, verify parental controls are set correctly. Restrict spending and playtime by default. Make your children opt-in to more access rather than opting-in to restrictions.

Support Regulation

If you believe these practices are exploitative, support regulatory efforts. Respond to public consultations. Contact representatives. Make it clear that this matters.

Vote With Your Wallet

Support games that monetize ethically. Avoid games with aggressive monetization. The market can drive change if players demand it.

FAQ

What is the Italian Competition Authority investigating?

The AGCM is investigating Activision Blizzard's monetization practices in Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty: Mobile. Specifically, they're examining allegations of misleading UI design, aggressive push notifications, confusing virtual currency systems, permissive parental control defaults, and violations of EU consumer protection laws including interference with the right of withdrawal.

Why does deceptive UI design matter legally?

Deceptive UI design violates the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which prohibits commercial practices that distort consumer decision-making. When games use bright buttons for purchases and hide decline options, misleading urgency language, or confusing pricing information, they're preventing consumers from making informed decisions. This is specifically prohibited under EU consumer protection law.

How do virtual currency systems violate consumer protection laws?

Virtual currency creates psychological distance between spending and actual money. The AGCM alleges that Activision Blizzard deliberately uses multiple currency types, non-aligned bundle pricing, and currency that expires to obscure real-world costs. This violates EU requirements for clear pricing information. When a player buys a 2,400-gem bundle but needs 2,750 gems for a purchase, forcing them to buy again, the total cost isn't transparent. EU law requires transparent pricing.

What does the investigation mean for players?

If the AGCM finds violations, outcomes could include mandatory clearer pricing, restrictions on aggressive notifications, default spending limits for minors, easier refund processes, and reduced dark pattern UI design. For players, this means less manipulative game design, clearer understanding of what they're spending, and potentially less time and money spent on these games.

Could this investigation lead to changes across the entire gaming industry?

Yes, very likely. If the AGCM successfully establishes that these practices violate EU consumer protection law, it sets precedent. Other European regulators could launch similar investigations. Over time, this could establish industry-wide standards around monetization practices. If Europe moves first, the US and other regions might follow.

What's the difference between this and gambling regulation?

Gambling regulation typically focuses on random rewards obtained through payment. The AGCM investigation is broader—it's about whether game companies use manipulative practices to extract money regardless of randomness. However, loot boxes and similar randomized systems could also be regulated as gambling, which this investigation might eventually lead to.

How long will the investigation take?

Typically, regulatory investigations proceed through evidence gathering (3-6 months), formal charges (if warranted), a formal proceeding where both parties present cases, and a final decision. The entire process usually takes 12-24 months. Appeals could extend this further. We're probably looking at a final decision in 2025 or 2026 at the earliest.

Can Activision Blizzard appeal the outcome?

Yes, companies can appeal regulatory decisions to Italian courts if they disagree with findings. The appeals process could take additional months or years. Even if the AGCM finds violations, Activision Blizzard has legal recourse to challenge that.

What happens if Activision Blizzard is found to have violated laws?

Possible outcomes include financial penalties (up to 10% of global revenue), orders to change specific practices, requirements to implement spending caps or clearer pricing, mandatory changes to parental controls, and potentially restitution to consumers who were harmed by the practices. The AGCM would likely offer a settlement opportunity before imposing penalties.

Why now? Gaming companies have monetized this way for years.

Multiple factors converged: growing consumer advocacy documenting harm, increased regulatory focus on digital manipulation across multiple industries, mental health concerns about game addiction, and political priority around protecting children from harmful digital practices. Regulators are moving on multiple fronts simultaneously to address how tech companies manipulate users.

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Mobile Gaming

The Italian Competition Authority's investigation into Activision Blizzard represents something important: a shift in how regulators think about video game monetization. For years, the industry has operated in a regulatory gray zone, free to experiment with increasingly aggressive monetization practices. That era appears to be ending.

This isn't about killing free-to-play games. Free-to-play is a legitimate business model that can be sustainable and ethical. It's about ensuring that games don't manipulate players into spending beyond their means, that pricing is clear and honest, that children are protected from unlimited spending, and that design decisions are driven by what makes games fun rather than what extracts the most money.

What the AGCM investigation ultimately achieves depends on what evidence emerges and what legal framework the Italian courts apply to that evidence. But even if this specific case goes nowhere, it signals that regulators worldwide are paying attention.

Game companies have a choice. They can continue with maximally aggressive monetization and expect increasing regulatory scrutiny, investigations, and potential enforcement action. Or they can proactively adopt more ethical practices, better transparency, and genuine player protections before regulators force them to.

The financially savvy choice is actually the ethical one. Companies that move to more sustainable, transparent monetization will face less regulatory risk, build better long-term player relationships, and ultimately create better games. Those that resist and try to continue current practices will face increasing headwinds.

For players, this investigation is genuinely important. It's one of the first times a major regulator has seriously examined whether popular games violate consumer protection laws. If the AGCM finds violations, it establishes precedent. If similar investigations happen across Europe and beyond, it could fundamentally reshape how games monetize.

We're not talking about eliminating in-game purchases. We're talking about eliminating the manipulative design practices that turn games into extraction systems rather than entertainment products. That's a distinction with real meaning for the industry's future.

The investigation is just beginning. We won't have final outcomes for at least 12-18 months. But what happens in this investigation will likely shape mobile gaming for the next decade. That's why it matters.

Key Takeaways

• Italian Competition Authority opened formal investigations into Activision Blizzard's monetization practices in Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile
• AGCM alleges deceptive UI design, aggressive push notifications, confusing virtual currency systems, and permissive default parental controls violate EU consumer protection laws
• Investigation represents significant regulatory shift: first major action against industry-standard predatory monetization practices
• Potential outcomes include financial penalties up to 10% of global revenue, mandatory practice changes, and industry-wide precedent for regulation
• If successful, investigation could reshape mobile gaming monetization worldwide and inspire similar regulatory action in US and other jurisdictions

Related Articles

• YouTube Shorts Parental Controls: Time Limits & Features [2025]
• ESET Antivirus Holiday Discount 2025: Save Up to 33% [Complete Guide]
• Roblox Age Verification Requirements: How Chat Safety Changes Work [2025]
• How to Set Up a PS5 for a Child: Complete Parental Controls Guide [2025]
• How to Set Up an iPad for a Child: Complete Safety Guide [2025]