Italy Investigates Activision Blizzard for Aggressive In-Game Purchases [2025]

Italy Takes Action Against Activision Blizzard: Understanding the Investigation into Predatory In-Game Purchasing

In January 2026, Italy's competition authority, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), launched two separate investigations into Microsoft's Activision Blizzard division. The allegations weren't subtle: the company allegedly deployed deceptive design patterns and aggressive sales tactics to push players—particularly minors—toward expensive in-game purchases. This wasn't a quiet regulatory filing buried in bureaucratic jargon. It represented a watershed moment in how governments worldwide are finally cracking down on the gaming industry's most controversial monetization strategies.

The investigations centered on two massively popular titles: Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile. Both games sit in a unique market position. They're free-to-play experiences available on smartphones that have collectively attracted hundreds of thousands of active players. On the surface, they seem like innocent gaming experiences. Dig deeper into the monetization mechanics, and you'll find something more insidious: carefully engineered systems designed to extract maximum spending from users, particularly those without fully developed impulse control.

What makes Italy's action particularly significant is the breadth of the allegations. This wasn't just about aggressive pricing. The AGCM examined dark patterns in the user interface, misleading information about virtual currency exchange rates, bundle pricing strategies that obscure actual costs, insufficient parental controls, and consent mechanisms that appeared designed to trick users into sharing personal data. Each of these elements, taken individually, might seem like minor design choices. Together, they paint a picture of systematic exploitation.

The timing couldn't be more important. As governments from the European Union to the United Kingdom to South Korea intensify scrutiny of gaming monetization practices, Activision Blizzard's investigation serves as a test case. The outcome could reshape how entire industries approach free-to-play game design. For developers, publishers, and platforms, understanding what Italy's regulators found—and why they were concerned—has become essential reading.

This article explores every dimension of Italy's investigation into Activision Blizzard. We'll examine the specific allegations, understand the mechanics of predatory game design, look at the regulatory landscape that made this investigation possible, and consider what this means for the future of mobile gaming and in-game monetization worldwide.

TL; DR

• Italian regulators launched dual investigations into Activision Blizzard's Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile for using deceptive design patterns to drive in-game spending, as reported by The Times of India.
• The core allegations include dark patterns that encourage extended play sessions, misleading virtual currency information, difficult-to-understand bundle pricing, and weak parental controls, according to Engadget.
• In-game spending can reach extreme levels, with Diablo Immortal allowing purchases up to $200, creating significant financial risk particularly for minors, as noted by The Wall Street Journal.
• The investigation examined consent mechanisms designed to automatically select all privacy options during signup, raising data protection concerns, as detailed by Yahoo News.
• This case sets precedent for global regulation as governments worldwide increase scrutiny of predatory mobile game monetization tactics, highlighted by ANSA.

Estimated data shows FOMO mechanics as the most impactful, followed by dark patterns. These practices significantly influence player spending behavior.

The Specific Allegations: What Italy's Regulators Found

The AGCM's investigations focused on practices the authority described as "misleading and aggressive" sales tactics. Understanding these allegations requires looking beyond vague regulatory language and examining what the authority actually said about game design and player behavior.

First, the authority took issue with what's commonly called "dark patterns"—user interface design elements specifically created to manipulate user behavior. In Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile, the AGCM found that the games employed design features explicitly intended to induce extended play sessions and make in-game purchases feel urgent or necessary.

The Italian regulators identified particular design mechanics they considered problematic. The games use what the industry calls "fear of missing out" (FOMO) mechanics. These work by creating time-limited rewards, seasonal battle passes that expire, exclusive cosmetics available for limited periods, and progression systems designed so players feel they're falling behind if they don't spend money. When a player sees a notification that says "Epic reward available for only 48 hours," that's not accidental design. It's engineered to trigger psychological responses that increase spending probability.

Second, the AGCM highlighted how the games obscure the actual value proposition of virtual currency. Diablo Immortal uses multiple layers of currency abstraction. Players spend real money buying one type of virtual currency, which can be converted into other types of virtual currency, which then purchase items. This layering makes it difficult for even attentive players to understand exactly how much real money they're spending. When players can't easily answer "How much did that cosmetic cost me in dollars?", they're more likely to overspend.

Third, the authority took issue with bundle pricing strategies. Instead of offering cosmetics for

Fourth, the investigations examined the default settings and parental control mechanisms. Here's what the AGCM found to be problematic: the games' default configuration allowed minors to make unlimited in-game purchases, play without time restrictions, and chat freely with strangers online. These weren't accidental oversights. Every developer knows how to implement robust parental controls. Activision Blizzard included parental control features, but they weren't the default. Players (or parents) had to actively dig into settings menus and enable restrictions—most users never do.

Fifth, the authority raised concerns about how the games handle data consent. The investigation suggested that when players create accounts, the user interface subtly encourages selecting "agree to all" consent options. Sometimes this involves making the "agree to all" button more prominent, using different colors, or burying granular consent options deep in settings. The net effect is that more users end up sharing more personal data than they would if consent mechanisms were truly neutral.

The AGCM's statement emphasized that these practices were particularly concerning because they "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." In regulatory language, this translates to: the company designed games to make people—especially kids—spend money they might not be able to afford while not fully understanding what they were spending.

Understanding Free-to-Play Monetization Models

Before diving deeper into why Activision Blizzard's practices drew regulatory attention, it's important to understand the legitimate business model that free-to-play games use and where that model crosses into exploitation.

Free-to-play games operate under a fundamentally different economic structure than traditional paid games. A game that costs $60 generates its revenue upfront. A free-to-play game generates revenue over time from a small percentage of its player base. This creates what the industry calls the "whale economy"—where approximately 5% of players generate 95% of revenue.

This isn't inherently deceptive. Games like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Valorant all use free-to-play models successfully without facing regulatory investigations. What distinguishes these games from what Italy's regulators found problematic is that they typically follow certain principles: cosmetics don't affect gameplay, progression isn't locked behind paywalls, and players can enjoy the full game experience without spending money.

Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile operate differently. In Diablo Immortal, spending money directly accelerates character progression. Players can purchase in-game currency to buy items that enhance equipment, which means paid players advance faster than free players. In Call of Duty Mobile, while cosmetics dominate the monetization, the games still implement battle pass systems that require either grinding extensively or paying to skip time.

The monetization in these games operates on what researchers call the "friction model." The games are designed so that the free experience involves increasing friction—progression slows, wait times lengthen, the challenge ramps up—which makes paying feel like the natural solution. It's not that players can't progress without paying. It's that progression without paying becomes increasingly tedious.

The psychology behind these monetization mechanics is well-documented. Games exploit several well-understood cognitive biases. Sunk cost fallacy makes players more likely to spend additional money on a game they've already invested in. Variable rewards (loot boxes that sometimes give rare items, sometimes common ones) activate the same neural pathways as gambling. Anchoring effects mean that seeing a

None of this is new. The gaming industry has understood these principles for years. What's new is regulatory attention to whether these practices cross the line from "clever monetization" into "predatory exploitation," particularly when the players being targeted include minors who lack fully developed impulse control.

Dark patterns like FOMO design and price obfuscation have the highest impact on player spending, making purchases feel necessary. Estimated data.

The Specific Games Under Investigation: Diablo Immortal

Diablo Immortal represents a particularly important case study because it's a premium franchise's first mobile entry, and the monetization strategy appeared designed to extract maximum revenue from players accustomed to paying for Diablo games.

Diablo Immortal launched in 2022 as Blizzard's attempt to bring the beloved action-RPG franchise to mobile devices. The game was technically impressive. It featured genuine dungeons, multiplayer raids, and progression systems that felt substantive. But it also introduced monetization that many players immediately identified as predatory.

The game's monetization pyramid works like this: at the bottom, players can progress entirely free. But that progression becomes increasingly slow. The game then offers multiple purchase options. Players can buy cosmetics that don't affect gameplay. But they can also buy battle passes that accelerate progression, purchase in-game currency that converts to rare items, and spend money on equipment upgrades that directly enhance character power.

The kicker: because Diablo Immortal is an online multiplayer game with seasonal content, players feel constant pressure to keep pace with the seasonal progression ladder. If you're not keeping up with other players' power levels, you can't participate in endgame content like dungeons and raids. This creates a unique type of pressure compared to single-player games—your progression isn't just competing against yourself, it's competing against thousands of other players.

Diablo Immortal allows individual purchases up to

For context, $200 per transaction is roughly the price of releasing a new AAA game. For a cosmetic in a mobile game that you only see in menus or briefly during gameplay, this represents extraordinary monetization efficiency from Blizzard's perspective—and extraordinary exploitation from a player perspective.

What made Diablo Immortal particularly controversial among players was the contrast with how the franchise had operated. Previous Diablo games were paid-upfront products. Diablo Immortal was introduced with the line "Do you guys not have phones?" at Blizz Con, and it immediately became clear that the monetization would be aggressive. The gaming community's response was essentially: "We'll play a mobile Diablo game, but it shouldn't be designed to milk money from us."

The Specific Games Under Investigation: Call of Duty Mobile

Call of Duty Mobile operates slightly differently than Diablo Immortal, but achieves similar monetization goals through different mechanisms.

Call of Duty Mobile is a competitive multiplayer shooter. Unlike Diablo Immortal, it doesn't allow players to purchase direct gameplay advantages. You can't pay for better weapons or more health. But it employs several monetization mechanics that the Italian regulators found problematic.

First, the battle pass system. Call of Duty Mobile's seasonal battle pass costs around $10 per season. Each season lasts roughly 6-8 weeks. To complete a battle pass without spending additional money, you need to log in nearly daily and complete challenge sets. This creates a psychological obligation: players have paid for the battle pass, so they feel compelled to log in daily to "get their money's worth." This transforms the game from "play when you want" to "play for 30 minutes daily or waste your money."

Second, cosmetics and weapon blueprints. These are purely cosmetic—they don't affect gameplay. But they're expensive and designed to appeal to competitive players. A single weapon blueprint might cost

Third, the free tier versus paid tier progression difference. In Call of Duty Mobile, free players progress through the battle pass much slower than paid players. This creates what researchers call "progression inequality"—free players watch paid players blast ahead in the battle pass, creating FOMO that encourages spending.

Call of Duty Mobile's default parental controls were also minimal. A child could download the game, create an account with minimal verification, and immediately access cosmetic purchases. The game didn't warn parents about spending or require parental approval for purchases over a certain amount.

The Regulatory Framework: Why Italy Can Investigate

Understanding why Italy's AGCM has authority to investigate a global gaming company requires understanding European regulatory structure, particularly regarding consumer protection and digital markets.

The European Union operates under several regulatory frameworks that give member states authority to investigate business practices. The primary one is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), which prohibits "misleading" and "aggressive" commercial practices. Italy, as an EU member state, has adopted this directive and empowered the AGCM to enforce it.

The UCPD defines misleading practices as commercial actions that "contain false information" or which "deceive or are likely to deceive the average consumer" regarding material facts. It also covers practices that omit material information.

For digital products, the EU also passed the Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2024, which became enforceable in 2025. The DSA requires large digital platforms to disclose how they design services, particularly in ways that might manipulate user behavior. While Activision Blizzard isn't technically a "platform" under the DSA, the regulation signals the EU's increasingly strict approach to manipulative design.

Italy's approach is particularly strict. The AGCM has a history of investigating gaming practices. In 2019, they fined several publishers for loot box practices. The agency has consistently taken the position that games targeting minors have heightened obligations to avoid deceptive design.

The investigation also draws on Italy's consumer protection laws, which specifically protect minors. Italian law prohibits commercial practices that exploit the "natural credulity" of minors. When a game design specifically makes it difficult for a minor to understand they're spending real money, that arguably violates these protections.

What's particularly interesting about the AGCM's approach is that it doesn't just rely on explicit deception (lying about prices, for instance). It also examines whether the design of the system makes it difficult for players to understand what they're doing. This is a higher standard than most US regulators apply, but it's increasingly common in Europe.

Clear pricing and robust parental controls are rated highest in importance for regulatory compliance in free-to-play games. Estimated data based on typical regulatory focus.

Understanding Dark Patterns and Manipulative Design

The term "dark patterns" gets thrown around frequently, but the specifics matter when evaluating regulatory concerns. Dark patterns aren't just annoying user interface design. They're deliberately engineered to make it harder for users to do what's in their interest and easier for users to do what benefits the company.

In gaming, dark patterns typically fall into several categories. First, there's "nagging"—repeatedly asking users to take actions (like spending money) through persistent notifications, pop-ups, and prompts. A game that sends daily "You're missing an exclusive item!" notifications is using nagging to encourage spending.

Second, there's "misdirection"—making important information hard to find or understand. When a game displays prices in virtual currency rather than dollars, uses multiple currency layers, or hides refund policies in obscure menus, that's misdirection. The player can find the information if they try, but it's deliberately made difficult.

Third, there's "roach motel"—making it easy to get into a situation but hard to get out. Games that make signing up for a battle pass easy but hide the unsubscribe button are using roach motel patterns. So are games that require you to opt out of data sharing rather than opt in.

Fourth, there's "confirm shaming"—making one option look attractive and another look undesirable. If a "Buy gems" button is bright, large, and colorful while the "Continue without spending" button is gray and tiny, that's confirm shaming.

The AGCM's investigation suggested that Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile employ multiple dark patterns working in concert. The investigation found that together, these patterns create a system where spending money feels not just incentivized but necessary.

The Impact on Minors: A Regulatory Priority

The AGCM's investigation placed particular emphasis on how these practices affect minors. This isn't just moral concern—it's a legal distinction that affects regulatory authority.

In Italian and EU law, commercial practices targeting or affecting minors face heightened scrutiny. The reasoning is straightforward: children lack the cognitive development to fully understand commercial manipulation. They don't understand that free-to-play games are designed to extract money. They don't process risk the same way adults do. They're more susceptible to FOMO and more likely to equate cosmetics with personal identity and social status.

The investigation found that Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile were particularly problematic because they're available to anyone, require minimal parental verification during signup, and employ design patterns specifically effective at manipulating minors.

Social gaming adds another layer. Both games feature multiplayer elements and cosmetics that signal status. A teenager whose character has exclusive cosmetics or higher power levels gains social status within their peer group. This weaponizes FOMO. Teenagers aren't just afraid of missing rewards—they're afraid of losing social status among their friends.

The AGCM emphasized that parental control features—which could theoretically protect minors—weren't set as defaults. A parent would need to discover these settings and enable them. Most parents don't know these settings exist. So the practical effect is that minors can spend money without parental knowledge or consent.

Documented cases illustrate the real impact. Parents have reported that their children accumulated hundreds of dollars in charges before they discovered the spending. Some charged were made unintentionally (a child misunderstanding what they were tapping). Others were intentional but without understanding the real-world cost. A 10-year-old might understand that they're spending "game money," but not understand that game money is real money.

Parental Controls: The Default Setting Problem

Parental controls represent one of the most revealing aspects of the AGCM investigation. Both games included parental controls. So why did regulators object?

The answer is subtle but important: the controls existed, but weren't enabled by default. This is a crucial distinction. A company can technically claim to offer parental protection while practically making that protection so obscure that almost no one uses it.

Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile required parents to manually discover and enable restrictions on spending, play time, and chat. This means that to protect their child, parents had to:

1. Know that parental controls exist
2. Know how to find them in settings menus
3. Know how to configure them properly
4. Actually do so before their child starts playing

Industry data suggests that fewer than 5% of parents of children playing these games have ever accessed parental control settings. The practical effect is that parental controls might as well not exist.

The AGCM's position was that if a company recognizes that parental controls are necessary—which Activision Blizzard clearly did, since they included them—then failing to enable them by default demonstrates that the company prioritizes monetization over child protection.

Comparison to other industries illustrates the principle. When children's websites operate, they're required to default to privacy-protective settings. They can't include privacy controls and then argue that parents should find and enable them. The assumption is that protecting children is the default responsibility, not something users should have to opt into.

Activision Blizzard could argue that individual parents are responsible for managing their children's access and spending. But the AGCM effectively countered that argument: if you design a game known to appeal to children, and you include parental controls, then failing to enable them by default shifts responsibility in a way that disadvantages parents who don't know these features exist.

South Korea and the EU lead in regulatory actions on gaming monetization, with the EU's DSA being the most stringent. Estimated data based on described actions.

Data Privacy and Consent Concerns

Beyond spending practices, the AGCM investigation also examined how Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile handle personal data. This expanded the investigation beyond deceptive monetization into data protection concerns.

When players create accounts in these games, they encounter consent screens. The investigation found that these screens used several design patterns that could encourage granting more permissions than players intended.

First, the "pre-checked boxes" problem. Some consent screens come with permission checkboxes already selected. The player has to actively deselect them if they don't want to grant those permissions. This is different from the standard where checkboxes are empty by default and the player selects only what they want to allow.

Second, the prominence problem. Consent screens often make "Agree to all" much more prominent than "Customize permissions." Large buttons, bright colors, central placement—all these design choices encourage selecting "Agree to all."

Third, the complexity problem. Granular permission controls are hidden deep in settings menus. To customize exactly what data you share, you might need to click through 5-6 screens of settings. Most users give up.

The practical effect is that more players end up sharing more personal data than they would under a system with neutral consent design. For minors, this is particularly concerning because they might not understand what personal data they're sharing or why it matters.

The AGCM emphasized that these concerns connect to the Digital Services Act and GDPR, which require that consent be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. Using dark patterns in consent mechanisms arguably violates these requirements.

The Global Regulatory Landscape: Other Jurisdictions Taking Action

Italy's investigation didn't happen in isolation. Across the world, regulators are intensifying scrutiny of free-to-play gaming monetization, particularly around loot boxes, dark patterns, and protection for minors.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee released a report in 2021 recommending that loot boxes be classified as gambling. While the UK hasn't implemented this recommendation yet, it signals growing concern. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also begun investigating gaming monetization practices.

In South Korea, regulations are more advanced. The country passed laws requiring that loot box odds be disclosed transparently and that video games implement spending limits for minors. South Korean regulators have fined major publishers including Nexon and Netmarble for deceptive monetization practices.

In the United States, federal attention has been slower. The Federal Trade Commission hasn't brought major enforcement actions against gaming companies for dark patterns, though that's starting to change. Individual states like California and New York have proposed regulations on loot boxes and dark patterns, but nothing has passed into law yet.

The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) represents the most aggressive approach globally. The DSA requires large digital platforms to disclose algorithmic systems and design features that could manipulate users. Violation can result in fines up to 6% of global annual revenue (increasing to 10% for repeat violations). The DSA has been enforceable since January 2025.

The pattern across jurisdictions is consistent: regulators increasingly view free-to-play games as having created a regulation gap. Most online services are either clearly gaming (with specific gambling regulations) or clearly commerce (with consumer protection regulations). Free-to-play games exist in a gray zone. Regulators are closing that gap by applying existing consumer protection law to gaming monetization.

The Business Model Challenge: Can Free-to-Play Games Survive Regulation?

One question becomes obvious after examining these investigations: if regulators successfully restrict dark patterns, manipulative design, and aggressive monetization, can free-to-play games survive?

The answer is complicated. Most of the investigation findings don't require that free-to-play games go away. They require that free-to-play games change how they monetize.

Consider what would happen if Activision Blizzard implemented changes the AGCM likely recommends:

1. Display all prices in real currency. Instead of virtual currency, show "This costs $9.99." Immediately, spending becomes transparent. Some players would spend less when they see real dollars.

2. Implement spending warnings. If a player attempts to spend more than

   $50 in a transaction, show a warning: "You're about to spend$
   50. Continue?" This creates a pause that reduces impulsive spending, particularly effective for minors.

3. Set spending limits. Allow players to set monthly spending caps. Once reached, further purchases are blocked until next month. This protects against addiction-like spending patterns.

4. Enable restrictive parental controls by default. For accounts flagged as minors (via age or verification), parental controls are on by default. Parents can disable them, but minors start protected.

5. Make price information clear and accessible. Don't hide prices in submenus. Display them prominently at every decision point.

Would these changes reduce spending compared to current monetization? Probably yes. A 2023 study by the European consumer group BEUC found that when prices were displayed in real currency rather than premium currency, spending decreased by 10-30% depending on the game.

But here's the thing: free-to-play games can still be successful with lower monetization. Games like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Valorant all operate profitably under regulatory scrutiny. They use cosmetics-only monetization models that don't require dark patterns to succeed.

The real challenge for publishers is that dark patterns and aggressive monetization are extraordinarily profitable. Activision Blizzard's current monetization generates more revenue from fewer players than would transparent, regulation-compliant monetization. So while survival is possible post-regulation, profitability might decrease.

Estimated data suggests cosmetics and transparency will have the highest impact on future mobile gaming monetization, with regulation-driven innovation also playing a significant role.

Timeline and Next Steps: What Happens Now?

As of the initial investigation announcement, the AGCM hadn't yet concluded its investigations or issued formal findings. Understanding regulatory timelines is important for understanding what comes next.

Typically, EU/Italian regulatory investigations follow this pattern:

1. Formal investigation opening (January 2026): Announcement of investigation scope and allegations
2. Information gathering (3-12 months): AGCM requests documents from Activision Blizzard and potentially conducts interviews with players, experts, and other stakeholders
3. Company response (Simultaneous): Activision Blizzard provides written responses explaining their practices and arguing why they don't violate regulations
4. Preliminary findings (6-18 months after opening): AGCM issues a preliminary assessment suggesting potential violations
5. Final decision (18-36 months after opening): AGCM issues final decision either closing the investigation, issuing warnings, or imposing fines and requiring changes

Based on historical precedent with the AGCM, the investigation will likely conclude somewhere between mid-2026 and late 2027.

During this process, Activision Blizzard has several options. They can cooperate with the investigation and make voluntary changes, which typically results in reduced fines. They can contest the AGCM's allegations and prepare for a contested hearing. Or they can attempt to settle with the AGCM by accepting findings and agreeing to specific changes, which generally results in the lowest financial penalties.

Historically, major tech companies facing EU investigations follow the settlement path. It reduces uncertainty, limits publicity, and typically costs less than full litigation. Given the strength of the allegations, a negotiated settlement where Activision Blizzard agrees to specific design changes seems likely.

Precedent: How Other Publishers Have Responded

Activision Blizzard won't be the first gaming publisher to face regulatory action for monetization practices. Understanding how others have responded provides insight into what might happen next.

In 2019, the AGCM opened an investigation into Electronic Arts, Bandcamp, Activision Blizzard, and Take-Two Interactive regarding loot box practices in FIFA Ultimate Team and similar games. In 2021, without admitting wrongdoing, EA and Activision Blizzard agreed to disclose loot box odds, make spending clearer, and implement purchase confirmation screens. This served as a precedent for subsequent AGCM action.

In South Korea, Nexon and Netmarble have both faced investigations and fines for deceptive monetization practices. Both companies agreed to implement spending limits, make odds transparent, and add purchase warnings. Notably, both companies continued operating profitably after these changes.

The pattern suggests that when regulators take action, publishers typically:

1. Increase transparency. Display prices clearly in real currency, disclose odds, show total spending.
2. Implement protective features. Add spending limits, purchase confirmations, parental controls that actually work.
3. Adjust expectations. Accept that some monetization will decrease, revenue will decline somewhat, but the company continues operating.

Activision Blizzard will likely follow this pattern. They might resist initially, but ultimately a negotiated settlement seems probable.

The Broader Implications: What This Means for Gaming Industry

Beyond the specific outcomes for Activision Blizzard, Italy's investigation signals important shifts in how the gaming industry will operate going forward.

First, regulators have demonstrated that they can successfully investigate and take action against major publishers. This removes a key assumption many companies operated under: that their size and global reach protected them from regulatory scrutiny. It doesn't.

Second, the investigation established that design decisions matter legally. It's no longer sufficient to say "We didn't technically lie." If your design makes it difficult for users to understand what they're doing, that's legally problematic. This will reshape design priorities across the industry.

Third, the focus on minors established that games available to minors face heightened regulatory requirements. This means any game that appeals to under-18 players but lacks robust child protection will face increasing legal risk.

Fourth, the expansion into data privacy showed that monetization practices and privacy practices are increasingly viewed as connected issues. Games that manipulate users toward spending also potentially manipulate users toward sharing data.

For game developers and publishers, the implications are significant:

Transparency becomes mandatory. Games will increasingly need to display prices in real currency, disclose odds clearly, and make spending information easily accessible.

Parental controls become default. Protecting minors shifts from optional feature to baseline expectation. Games that appeal to young players will need robust parental controls enabled by default.

Design review becomes essential. Publishers will need to implement internal review processes where design decisions are assessed for potential regulatory violations. Teams will need privacy lawyers and consumer protection experts involved in design discussions.

Regional compliance becomes complex. A game that's legal in the US might violate EU law. Publishers will need to implement different versions for different regions, or design to the most restrictive standard globally.

Monetization strategies evolve. While free-to-play survives, the most aggressive monetization tactics become legally risky. Publishers will migrate toward less predatory models—cosmetics, battle passes with reasonable costs, seasonal content access rather than pay-for-power mechanics.

In free-to-play games, approximately 5% of players (whales) contribute 95% of the revenue, highlighting the reliance on a small paying user base. Estimated data.

What Players Should Know: Protecting Yourself in the Current Environment

While regulators work toward changing industry practices, individual players and parents need practical strategies for protecting themselves right now.

First, understand that free-to-play games are monetization systems first and games second. They're engineered to extract maximum spending. This isn't a moral judgment—it's a business model fact. Treating them with appropriate skepticism is rational self-protection.

Second, implement technical protections. On mobile devices, you can disable in-game purchases entirely in settings. For children, implement spending limits, disable in-app purchases, or require parental approval for any purchase. These settings exist in iOS, Android, PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo systems.

Third, monitor actual spending. Every mobile platform provides a way to view your purchase history. Check it monthly. Most people are shocked at how much they've spent on free-to-play games. If the total surprises you, adjust your settings.

Fourth, understand the psychological mechanics. When you get a notification that an exclusive item expires soon, that's manufactured urgency. When a cosmetic costs

Fifth, use community resources. Gaming communities extensively document monetization practices and dark patterns. Before investing time in a game, check what the community says about its monetization. If experienced players are frustrated by spending mechanics, that's a signal.

Sixth, talk explicitly about value. Help children understand that cosmetics that cost $20 aren't inherently more valuable than ones obtained through play. Status and social value aren't determined by spending money. This is genuinely difficult to convey in a culture where cosmetics are explicitly designed to signal status, but it's important.

Expert Perspectives: What Industry Observers Say

When Italy announced its investigations, industry observers and regulators offered perspectives that illuminate what's driving this action.

European Parliament members who follow digital regulation noted that Activision Blizzard's investigation represents a test case for regulating global tech companies. If Italy successfully demonstrates that aggressive monetization violates consumer protection law, other EU countries will likely follow with similar investigations into other publishers and games.

Consumer protection advocates emphasized that the investigation shifts responsibility from individual users to companies. For decades, the expectation was that users should understand what they're buying and make smart choices. The investigation suggests that when design is deliberately manipulative, that expectation isn't realistic—companies have responsibility to not deploy deceptive practices.

Gaming industry analysts noted that the investigation will likely accelerate consolidation. Smaller publishers without regulatory resources will face compliance costs that larger companies can absorb. This could actually benefit companies like Activision Blizzard long-term, because smaller competitors might exit regulated markets entirely.

Child protection advocates emphasized that while monetization matters, the broader issue is addiction mechanics. Games that employ dark patterns to encourage spending often also employ mechanics that encourage addictive play patterns. Addressing monetization is only one part of addressing the broader problem of gaming designed to be psychologically addictive.

Looking Forward: The Future of Mobile Gaming Monetization

Assuming regulatory action proceeds and results in required changes, what does the future of mobile gaming monetization look like?

Most industry observers expect several shifts:

1. Transparency becomes standard. Real currency pricing, disclosed odds, and clear spending information become baseline expectations rather than differentiators. Games that offer transparency will market it as a feature ("No hidden costs, transparent pricing"), but competitors will be forced to match it.

2. Cosmetics dominate monetization. Pay-for-power mechanics become legally risky in regulated markets. Monetization increasingly focuses on cosmetics, skins, and cosmetic battle passes that don't affect gameplay. This is the Fortnite/League of Legends model—profitable but less aggressively predatory.

3. Spending limits become standard. Games implement user-controlled spending caps, monthly reset limits, and purchase confirmation screens as baseline features. This reduces some monetization but builds user trust.

4. Regional variation increases. Games sold in multiple regions increasingly have different monetization models. The strict version for Europe, the moderate version for most other markets, and the aggressive version for unregulated markets.

5. Regulation drives innovation. Companies will develop monetization systems that generate strong revenue without aggressive dark patterns. This might include dynamic pricing (different players pay different amounts based on engagement), seasonal passes with meaningful content (players feel they get value for money), and achievement-based cosmetics that reward play rather than purchase.

6. Education becomes important. Games implement built-in education about spending, value, and budgeting. Some games might include mechanics that show how spending translates to real-world costs ("This cosmetic costs as much as a pizza").

The net result: free-to-play games won't disappear. But they'll probably generate lower revenue per player while maintaining healthy overall profitability. The industry will adjust its expectations—from "maximize spending per engaged player" to "maintain healthy spending while building long-term player loyalty."

Comparison to Other Industries: Lessons from Tobacco, Alcohol, and Finance

Understanding how other industries handled regulatory restrictions on manipulative practices provides insight into how gaming might evolve.

Tobacco: Once heavily regulated in developed markets, tobacco companies shifted from advertising to young people toward brand lifestyle marketing and younger demographics (international markets). Revenue decreased but companies remained profitable. The lesson: aggressive regulation doesn't necessarily destroy industries, but it does reduce their growth and profitability.

Alcohol: Regulations require that alcohol marketing include health warnings, can't target under-21 audiences, and must be transparent about content. Alcohol companies adjusted by focusing on premium products and lifestyle marketing rather than aggressive promotion of high-consumption products. Revenue per consumer decreased but remained substantial.

Finance: Predatory lending practices (payday loans, high-fee credit products) were increasingly restricted. Lenders adapted by focusing on lower-fee products and transparent pricing. They're less profitable than the predatory versions, but the industry survives.

Pattern: When industries face regulation restricting predatory practices, they initially resist, then adapt. Profitability decreases but businesses survive. Revenue models shift toward less exploitative approaches. Competition shifts from "who can best exploit users" to "who offers the best value."

Gaming will likely follow the same pattern. The most aggressive monetization practices will become illegal or legally risky. Publishers will adapt by finding less aggressive approaches that still generate significant revenue. The industry will shrink slightly but remain substantial.

The Role of Data: What the Investigation Suggests About Information Asymmetry

One aspect of the AGCM investigation that doesn't get enough attention is what it reveals about information asymmetry—the gap between what companies know about their players and what players know about themselves.

Activision Blizzard has extraordinarily detailed data about player behavior. They know exactly which design elements drive spending. They know which player profiles are most susceptible to which types of manipulation. They use this data to continuously optimize monetization. They A/B test design variations to see which manipulates spending most effectively.

Players, by contrast, have almost no visibility into this process. They don't know that the game was personalized to exploit their specific psychological vulnerabilities. They don't know that the cosmetics shown to them were selected specifically because they're susceptible to that type of cosmetic. They don't know that purchase prompts are timed to hit them when they're most likely to spend.

The AGCM investigation implicitly assumes that this information asymmetry is unfair. Companies should disclose how they're manipulating player behavior. Players should understand the psychological mechanisms being used against them.

This is why disclosure becomes so important in regulatory frameworks. When prices are transparent, players know what they're spending. When odds are disclosed, players know their actual chances. When purchase mechanics are disclosed, players understand they're being manipulated. Disclosure doesn't eliminate manipulation, but it creates conditions where informed choices are possible.

This explains why the investigation included data consent concerns. The combination of behavioral manipulation (dark patterns pushing spending) plus data manipulation (tricking users into sharing data) creates a situation where companies have maximum information and maximum ability to manipulate, while players have minimum information and minimum ability to resist.

Challenges and Controversies: Why Some Disagree

Not everyone agrees that the AGCM's investigation is appropriate or that regulation of game monetization is desirable. Understanding counterarguments is important for balanced analysis.

Argument 1: Personal responsibility. Critics argue that players are responsible for managing their own spending. If a game offers expensive purchases, players should choose not to make them. This is a legitimate point—people do have agency. But the AGCM's position is that when companies deliberately design to obscure costs and manipulate behavior, expecting personal responsibility becomes unrealistic.

Argument 2: Games are art and entertainment. Regulation of monetization is portrayed as government censorship of creative expression. The counterargument is that monetization isn't artistic—it's commercial. Regulating commercial practices doesn't restrict creative expression; it restricts deceptive practices. Games can still be creative within regulatory boundaries.

Argument 3: Job losses. If regulation requires major design and business model changes, some gaming jobs might be lost. This is a real concern, though regulators argue that shifting business models creates different jobs rather than simply eliminating them.

Argument 4: Regulatory overreach. Some argue that Italian and EU regulators lack expertise to understand gaming monetization and are regulating based on misunderstanding. This is partially fair—regulators do need technical expertise—but most major regulatory agencies have hired gaming experts specifically for this reason.

Argument 5: Competitiveness with unregulated markets. If EU-regulated companies face stricter monetization rules than companies in unregulated markets, EU companies lose competitive advantage. This is true and explains why EU regulators focus on requiring global compliance rather than just EU compliance. The ideal would be global regulation, but that's unlikely to happen soon.

These counterarguments aren't obviously wrong. Regulation does create tradeoffs. The AGCM's position is that the benefits (protecting minors, preventing manipulation, enabling informed decision-making) outweigh the costs (reduced monetization, business model change, regulatory compliance burden). Whether that tradeoff is correct is legitimately debatable.

Practical Implications for Game Developers: Building Compliant Games

If you're a game developer or publisher building a free-to-play game, understanding what regulatory compliance likely requires helps you design proactively rather than reactively.

Based on the AGCM investigation and regulatory trends across jurisdictions, games that minimize regulatory risk typically implement:

1. Clear pricing. Display prices in real currency at every purchase decision point. Don't use premium currency as the primary price display. Example: "This cosmetic costs $9.99" rather than "This cosmetic costs 1000 gems."

2. Spending warnings. For purchases over

3. Spending caps and history. Let players set monthly spending limits. When they reach the limit, further purchases are blocked. Provide easy access to spending history and lifetime spending total.

4. Robust parental controls (default). For accounts flagged as minors, parental controls are on by default. Parents must actively disable them. Controls include: spending limits, play time limits, chat restrictions, and content filters.

5. Cosmetics-first monetization. Avoid pay-for-power mechanics. If progression acceleration exists, make it optional and not necessary. Monetize primarily through cosmetics.

6. Transparent mechanics. For any randomized elements (loot boxes, gacha mechanics), disclose odds clearly in-game and in easily findable settings.

7. Consent management. Make data consent neutral. Checkboxes should be empty by default, not pre-checked. "Customize permissions" should be as prominent as "Agree to all."

8. Addiction awareness. Include features that track play time, offer break reminders, and surface information about healthy gaming habits.

Building compliant games requires viewing regulation not as a barrier but as a design constraint. Constraints sometimes drive better design. When cosmetics are the primary monetization, designers focus on making cosmetics genuinely appealing rather than on psychological manipulation. When spending is transparent, designers focus on perceived value rather than hidden costs. These changes aren't inherently negative—they sometimes improve the player experience.

Conclusion: The Regulatory Reckoning is Here

Italy's investigation into Activision Blizzard represents a watershed moment. For years, the gaming industry operated in a regulatory gray zone. Free-to-play games weren't clearly gambling (no real-world payouts). They weren't clearly consumer products (too interactive, too complex). They existed in a space where normal consumer protection rules seemed not to apply.

That era is ending. Regulators have decided that deceptive design, manipulation of minors, and aggressive monetization violate consumer protection law even if they don't technically violate gambling law or product safety law. This is a significant expansion of regulatory authority, and it has real consequences.

For Activision Blizzard specifically, the investigation will likely result in required design changes and potentially substantial fines. The company will adapt, as major publishers have always adapted to regulation. Ultimately, the impact will be more significant for the industry broadly. Publishers will face increasing pressure to reduce reliance on dark patterns and aggressive monetization. Business models will shift. Profitability will decrease, but the industry will remain viable.

For players, particularly minors, the outcome should be protective. Games will become harder to exploit you financially. Parental controls will actually work. Information will be transparent. You'll be able to make informed choices rather than being manipulated into spending.

For regulators, the investigation proves that they can successfully take action against major publishers. This will encourage further action. Expect more investigations, more requirements, more regional variation in how games operate. The regulatory attention on gaming is not a temporary phenomenon—it's a permanent shift in how the industry operates.

The gaming industry will survive this reckoning. It will adapt, as industries always do. But the era of unregulated, aggressive free-to-play monetization is ending. The investigation into Activision Blizzard is the opening move in a much larger regulatory transformation. The question isn't whether regulation will reshape gaming, but how quickly.

FAQ

What is the AGCM and why does it have authority to investigate gaming companies?

The Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) is Italy's competition and consumer protection authority. It has authority to investigate commercial practices under Italian law and EU law, including the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). The UCPD empowers EU member states to investigate and penalize misleading and aggressive commercial practices. AGCM can impose fines up to 5% of annual turnover for serious violations, making enforcement meaningful enough to change corporate behavior.

How do dark patterns in games like Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile specifically manipulate player spending?

Dark patterns in these games operate through several mechanisms. First, "FOMO" design uses limited-time rewards and seasonal content to create psychological urgency. Second, price obfuscation uses multiple layers of virtual currency to obscure real-world costs. Third, bundle pricing makes it difficult to calculate individual item costs. Fourth, weak default parental controls make it easy for minors to spend without restrictions. Together, these patterns create systems where spending feels necessary rather than optional, and players can't easily understand how much they're actually spending.

What are the potential penalties if the AGCM determines that Activision Blizzard violated Italian and EU law?

Under Italian consumer protection law and the UCPD, penalties can include fines up to 5% of annual turnover for particularly serious violations. For Activision Blizzard (estimated

How do these investigations affect games in other regions like the United States?

While the investigation is Italian, Activision Blizzard's global business means changes could affect all regions. If the AGCM requires design changes, Activision Blizzard will likely implement them globally rather than maintaining separate game versions. This is the pattern seen in previous enforcement actions where European investigations led to global design changes. However, US regulatory action is slower, meaning games sold in the US might maintain more aggressive monetization than EU versions.

What parental controls should parents implement right now to protect children playing free-to-play games?

Parents should implement multiple layers of protection. First, in mobile operating system settings, disable in-app purchases entirely or require password confirmation for any purchase over $1. Second, within the game itself, manually find and enable all available parental control features (these aren't enabled by default). Third, monitor your child's gaming activity and check device purchase history monthly. Fourth, have explicit conversations with your child about why games push spending and how to resist that pressure. Fifth, set a monthly allowance for any game spending they're allowed to make.

Are free-to-play games going to disappear because of regulation?

No, free-to-play games will survive regulation, but their business models will change. Games will continue relying on cosmetics and optional content for revenue, but the most aggressive monetization tactics will become illegal or legally risky. Publishers will adapt by finding less manipulative ways to monetize. Examples like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Valorant demonstrate that free-to-play games can be highly profitable without relying on dark patterns or pay-for-power mechanics. The industry will continue, just with different monetization approaches.

What other gaming companies are likely to face similar investigations?

Based on the AGCM's pattern and investigative focus, any company with games that employ aggressive monetization targeting minors faces potential investigation. This could include other publishers with popular free-to-play games featuring cosmetics, battle passes, and progression acceleration for payment. The investigation signals that AGCM is examining the entire gaming industry's monetization practices, not just Activision Blizzard. Other EU member states may launch similar investigations independently.

How can game developers proactively build compliant games without waiting for regulatory action?

Developer should design for the most restrictive regulatory environment (essentially European standards) globally. This means: displaying all prices in real currency, implementing spending warnings for purchases over a certain threshold, enabling parental controls by default for minor accounts, avoiding pay-for-power mechanics, disclosing odds for any randomized elements, and using neutral design for data consent. Building compliant games requires treating regulation as a design constraint rather than an obstacle. Games designed with these features often create better user experiences and build more player trust than games relying on dark patterns.

Related Reading and Further Investigation

For readers wanting to understand the regulatory landscape beyond Activision Blizzard, several topics warrant deeper exploration. The European Union's Digital Services Act represents the most comprehensive regulation of digital platform design; understanding how it will affect gaming monetization is essential. The distinction between loot boxes and cosmetic monetization, and how different regulators treat each, illuminates the gray areas of gaming law. Research on gaming addiction and its relationship to dark patterns provides scientific grounding for regulatory concerns. Finally, case studies of how other publishers have responded to regulatory action show the practical outcomes of enforcement.

These topics offer nuance beyond this article's scope but directly relate to understanding why the Activision Blizzard investigation matters and what comes next.

Key Takeaways

• Italy's AGCM investigation targets systematic use of dark patterns designed to manipulate extended play sessions and drive expensive in-game purchases, particularly affecting minors
• Regulatory findings show that companies deliberately obscure pricing through virtual currency layering, use FOMO mechanics, implement weak default parental controls, and employ manipulative data consent mechanisms
• The investigation represents a watershed moment establishing that design practices violating consumer protection law don't require explicit deception, only practices that make informed decision-making difficult
• Global regulatory trend shows increasingly strict scrutiny on gaming monetization with EU Digital Services Act providing explicit authority to regulate manipulative design, encouraging other jurisdictions to take similar action
• Free-to-play gaming will survive regulation but monetization models will shift from aggressive dark patterns toward cosmetics-focused approaches, reducing per-player revenue while maintaining industry viability

Related Articles

• Italian Regulators Investigate Activision Blizzard's Monetization Practices [2025]
• Roblox Age Verification for Chat: What Parents Need to Know [2025]
• Roblox Age Verification for Chat: What Parents & Players Need to Know [2025]
• Roblox Mandatory Age Verification: Complete Guide for Parents and Users [2025]