“The games industry should absolutely be sitting up and paying attention”: The Mobile Mavens debate the Digital Fairness Act

• “If not considered carefully, new regulations do indeed have scope to kick the legs out from under the free-to-play model” - Celia Pontin.
• “If this proposal turns into regulation it would make it practically impossible to offer a high quality F2P game to the European audience” - Martine Spaans.
• “The Digital Fairness Act, if voted in, could kill one of Europe’s ONLY tech success stories - gaming” - John Wright.

Earlier this week, Supercell CEO Ilkka Paananen voiced his concerns in a widely shared LinkedIn post, warning that the Digital Fairness Act could have damaging consequences for Europe's games ecosystem.

In light of his comments and the broader concerns around these regulations, we reached out to our Mobile Mavens to shed more light on how industry experts are viewing the proposals. Here's what they had to say.

Celia Pontin

Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Flux Digital Policy

If not considered carefully, new regulations do indeed have scope to kick the legs out from under the free-to-play model. From where I’m standing, industry concerns revolve around whether the proposals signal a fundamental lack of understanding of game design, technical limitations, and the ability of monetisation models to be highly responsible and consumer-friendly.

As with any regulatory development, there’s always potential for benefits in areas such as simplifying regulations or reducing unnecessary burdens, and to be fair that’s in the scope of the DFA consultation. However, the risk of negative outcomes is huge. One of the key risks comes from the potential for the Commission to take a one-size-fits-all approach, with highly specific requirements or prohibitions that don’t recognise the sheer diversity and unique nature of the video games industry.

For instance, regulations around in-game currency could make things worse for players by mandating price statements that don’t make sense for specific games, while simultaneously blocking developers from using approaches that do. Technical changes needed to comply could be prohibitive or even impossible for some developers, despite not necessarily making things better for consumers.

The core principles of transparency, fairness, and the protection of vulnerable groups aren’t controversial and are already covered under current regulations such as UCPD. The benefit of principles-based regulation like UCPD is that it can keep up with evolving markets through clear regulatory guidance and direction - as a former regulator, my view is that the overwhelming majority of the points raised by the Commission can absolutely be addressed this way.

The industry really needs to participate in the regulatory process so it can set out the potential impact of this regulation - the more voices on this, the clearer it is that there are risks. This is just as true of smaller developers than of the largest studios, so it’s in everyone’s interest to speak up. The danger lies in the Commission not being made aware of some of the significant consequences the regulation could have and how far the effects could be felt.

Martine Spaans

Owner at Tamalaki

I fully agree with Ilkka’s concerns and the consequences could be far more impactful than many developers are now thinking. You might think “I don’t have loot boxes in my game, so not my problem”, but the CPC proposal goes much further than that. It could force players to scroll through a digital contract every time they want to use a power-up. It would completely break the balance and immersion of the game experience. 

The rise of F2P has made games accessible for millions of people around the world. People who do not consider themselves gamers and who otherwise never might have stepped over their threshold to buy a game. But if this proposal turns into regulation it would make it practically impossible to offer a high quality F2P game to the European audience. 

For many months already the European Games Developer Federation and Video Games Europe have been discussing this topic with the European Commission, but these organisations need the backing of the industry.

As an industry we have tools in place like the PEGI Code of Conduct. We need to do better and show a wider adoption of such instruments. Not just to show that the industry can regulate itself, but also to take responsibility and to show we take minor protection serious.

Matej Lancaric

User Acquisition & Marketing consultant at lancaric.me

The Digital Fairness Act is well-intentioned, and consumer protection in games is important, but the draft as written shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how free-to-play (F2P) economies actually work.

By trying to regulate psychological hooks and predatory monetisation, the EU risks dismantling the very core design frameworks that sustain F2P games: balancing soft and hard currencies, event-based offers, and post-launch tuning.

This is another ATT moment, but this time, it’s political.

The spirit of fairness is commendable, but the mechanics of enforcement are not realistic for live-service ecosystems.

For Developers

Negative:

• Limiting to one currency breaks the economy design for RPGs, Forex sims, and idle hybrids.

• Forbidding bundles removes the ability to build perceived value and dynamic pricing funnels.

• 14-day refunds on digital consumables make it nearly impossible to forecast revenue or operate events profitably.

• The “no post-launch rebalancing” rule freezes live-ops + eliminating the ability to respond to inflation or engagement dips.

Positive (if refined):

• It could force studios to improve price transparency and reduce over-aggressive gacha tactics.

• Encourages better onboarding and purchase clarity - long-term trust with users.

For Players

Positive:

• More clarity around what items cost in real currency.

• Reduced exploitative microtransactions targeted at minors or vulnerable spenders.

Negative:

• Game diversity and availability will shrink in the EU, as studios shift focus to markets without such friction.

• Delays in live content updates, limited offers, and lower production investment in EU-targeted builds.

This kills the incentive to operate in the EU -  studios will just move their budgets to the US and Asia.

Some regulation is needed - but not this form.

What we need is:

• Clear, age-tiered guidelines (not blanket bans). Treat games differently based on the audience's maturity level.

• Transparent labeling standards for gacha and IAP probabilities - similar to Apple’s existing disclosure model.

• Self-regulation frameworks through industry bodies (PEGI, IAB Europe, EGDF) instead of hard bans.

• Smart friction: require confirmation for high-value IAPs or recurring offers, not every €0.99 purchase.

• Flexible compliance paths: allow developers to prove fairness via third-party audits instead of one-size-fits-all bans.

It’s not law yet, but if it passes in this form, everyone loses.

If implemented as proposed, the DFA could:

• Push innovation and budgets out of Europe, similar to what IDFA did for UA teams.

• Hurt small and mid-sized studios that rely on bundled monetisation.

• Trigger fragmented compliance across EU markets, leading to costly localisation and design bifurcation.

• Benefit large global publishers who can afford lawyers and regional build splits.

• Ultimately, make EU players less prioritised in global launches.

However, the conversation itself is a good thing. It highlights the need for responsible monetisation and better consumer trust - both of which the industry should own before regulators force it.

The EU is trying to protect consumers, but it’s regulating fun itself.

The EU’s Digital Fairness Act is a wake-up call, not a death sentence. If the industry doesn’t participate in the policy conversation now, regulation will happen to us, not with us.

The path forward is dialogue between policymakers, developers, and player advocates to create smart, scalable, and transparent rules that protect players without stifling creativity and business models.

Isabel Davies

Video games, esports and digital entertainment lawyer, associate

The games industry should absolutely be sitting up and paying attention to the upcoming Digital Fairness Act – the consultation and call for evidence is currently open until the 24 October.

The Digital Fairness Act will likely impact several areas which are key to the mobile games ecosystem, such as in-game currency, loot boxes and engagement of players – which was all heavily signposted in last year’s Digital Fairness Fitness Check. It is vital that the industry engages with its trade bodies and policy advisors to ensure the voice of the sector is being heard on these topics.

As Ilkka’s statement rightly points out, the attempted reclassification of in-game currency as a ‘digital representation of value’ by the CPC Network ignores previous legal norms and European case law where such currency has long been treated as ‘digital content’.

Such a change would have several complicated knock-on impacts as to how in-game currencies can be offered and would result in confusion for end users.

John Wright

CEO Turborilla

The Digital Fairness Act, if voted in, could kill one of Europe’s ONLY tech success stories -  gaming.

Like he says, you’ve all heard of Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Minecraft, The Witcher right? All global hits. All made in Europe. Now imagine a law that treats every in-game coin, gem, or token like a bank transaction. That’s the Digital Fairness Act.

If it passes, every player action = a legal process. Pop-ups. Confirmations. Cost warnings. Basically, turning gaming into a tax return.

And for what? Added bureaucracy? As a parent I monitor and restrict all of my children’s gaming time and exposure, so does 98% of parents in my opinion. So if this is about child safety I think they’re going about it wrong.

Just think of the impact this could have on:

Free-to-play models? Dead. Innovation? Choked by red tape. Studios? Either downsizing, closing or leaving Europe.

This isn’t protecting anyone. It’s politicians doing something else to punish success.

Games aren’t banks, they’re wonderful ecosystems that fund creativity and culture and give people escapism from the mundane parts of life.

Essentially this could be really bad for our industry and I’m tired of people in government or the EU making decisions that negatively affect us, who are the people making these calls and who are they consulting because anyone in a studio would tell you this is a bad idea. 

Let’s not regulate the fun out of one of Europe’s few thriving industries.