Industry NewsMicrotransactionsRegulation

How Italy’s Investigation of Activision Blizzard Could Change Mobile Game Monetization

UUnknown

2026-02-23

10 min read

How AGCM’s probe into Activision Blizzard could reshape mobile monetization worldwide — and what parents, players, and studios must do now.

Italy’s AGCM Is Targeting Activision Blizzard — Why every gamer, parent, and studio should pay attention

Hook: If you’ve ever been surprised by a sudden in‑game purchase or watched a child chase limited‑time rewards until their wallet drained, you already feel the problem AGCM is investigating. Italy’s competition authority has opened probes into Activision Blizzard over alleged misleading and aggressive monetization in mobile titles like Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile — and this could change how mobile games make money worldwide.

Executive summary — Inverted pyramid first

The Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) announced in January 2026 two formal investigations into Activision Blizzard, focusing on design elements that allegedly push players (including minors) toward extended play and high spend, opaque virtual currency bundles, and pressure tactics around time‑limited rewards. At stake: potential fines, mandatory product changes, and a precedent that regulators across Europe and beyond could use to reshape mobile monetization practices.

Key implications you should know now:

For players and parents: clearer disclosures, spending caps, and easier refunds may be coming — but immediate protections are still manual (parental controls, blocking purchases).
For studios: expect pressure to remove or rework dark patterns, show real prices instead of opaque virtual currency bundles, and offer non‑predatory progression options.
For storefronts: app stores may adopt stricter storefront labeling, age gates, and policies that limit aggressive microtransaction mechanics.

What AGCM says and the legal angle

The AGCM’s January 2026 press release framed the investigations around two pillars:

use of interface and game design elements to induce prolonged play and recurring spending (targeting minors in particular), and
lack of transparency in the value and sale of virtual currency bundles, which can mask the true cost of items and encourage overspending.

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

Legally, this sits at the intersection of consumer protection and competition law. AGCM enforces unfair commercial practices under Italy’s Consumer Code, which implements the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The authority can open probes, impose behavioral remedies, and levy fines. The focus on game design and psychological nudges also brings dark pattern doctrine into play — regulators increasingly treat certain UX tactics as misleading or aggressive practices.

Two legal threads to watch

Misleading commercial practices — bundling virtual currency and failing to disclose real‑money costs can be considered misleading if consumers cannot understand the true price of digital goods.
Aggressive commercial practices and protection of minors — game mechanics that exploit impulsivity, especially among children, can be labeled aggressive and therefore illegal under EU/Italian rules.

Why this matters now — 2026 trends that amplify the impact

Regulatory attention to game monetization has accelerated since 2023. By 2026, we’ve seen:

EU‑level momentum for stricter consumer protections around digital products and transparency (post‑Digital Services Act conversations).
Increased scrutiny of gambling‑adjacent mechanics like randomized loot (gacha/loot boxes) from several European authorities and growing political pressure to protect minors.
Public backlash and class‑action litigation in multiple markets, making reputational risk a commercial concern for major studios.

AGCM’s probe arrives on the heels of these trends and could catalyze coordinated action. When a national competition authority targets one of the world’s largest publishers (now part of Microsoft), it signals to other regulators that the status quo is contestable.

Possible outcomes and ripple effects

AGCM’s investigations can lead to a range of outcomes, each with distinct ripple effects:

1) Behavioral remedies and transparency orders

AGCM may require Activision Blizzard to change UI flows, label virtual currency clearly, show real‑world prices alongside in‑game currency, and stop using persistent nudges that encourage compulsive spending. Globally, studios may adopt these practices preemptively to avoid market bans or patch rollbacks.

2) Fines and sanctions

Fines could be significant and would raise the cost of aggressive monetization models. This increases financial incentive for studios to explore alternatives such as battle passes with transparent pricing or subscription bundles.

3) Regulatory harmonization and copycat actions

Other EU member states’ regulators (and consumer agencies outside the EU) could cite AGCM’s findings to launch their own probes. The result: a patchwork of national rules or, optimally, harmonized guidance across the EU about acceptable monetization design.

4) Storefront policy changes

Apple and Google control distribution; they may update developer rules to require clearer in‑app purchase disclosures, age gating, or restrict certain time‑limited mechanics. If stores tighten rules, enforcement becomes global by default.

5) Game design and revenue model shifts

Studios may pivot away from randomized monetization (gacha/loot boxes) toward transparent cosmetic stores, season passes, or paid DLC — reducing friction for regulators and satisfying player trust concerns.

Forecast: What the ecosystem may look like by 2027

Projecting forward, here are plausible scenarios over the next 12–24 months:

Best case: Clear labeling becomes standard, parental controls improve, and subscription/battle‑pass models expand. Players get better cost visibility without sacrificing creative monetization.
Moderate case: National regulators issue varied orders; major publishers comply in the EU but not uniformly elsewhere, creating regional feature divergence and complex compliance burdens.
Worst case for industry: Heavy fines and broad restrictions on randomized monetization push smaller studios out of the freemium market or force aggressive price hikes for players.

Actionable advice — What parents and players should do now

Regulatory change takes time. Meanwhile, here’s a practical checklist you can follow today to limit surprise charges and protect kids.

For parents

Enable platform parental controls: Both iOS and Android offer purchase authentication and spending limits — set these to require your password for every in‑app purchase.
Remove payment methods: Where feasible, remove saved cards from the device used by minors or use a dedicated family account with limited funds.
Use allowance cards: Give children a prepaid gift card or specific in‑game currency top‑up so spending is capped.
Check purchase histories weekly: Review receipts and bank alerts; set up transaction notifications to catch unexpected charges early.
Talk about virtual currency: Help kids understand that in‑game money has real‑world value and discuss limits for time‑limited events or hype‑driven purchases.

For players (teens and adults)

Audit a game’s monetization before investing time: Read reviews that call out aggressive mechanics, check whether items are purchasable directly or only through randomized boxes.
Prefer transparent stores: Choose games that list real‑money prices per cosmetic or advancement option instead of opaque bundles.
Use platform tools for refunds: If a purchase was misleading, file for a refund quickly — EU consumer protections are generally stronger on refunds for misleading digital purchases.
Enable two‑factor authentication: Prevent unauthorized purchases by protecting your account login.

Actionable advice — For studios and storefronts

Regulatory pressure should be treated as an opportunity to build trust and reduce long‑term risk.

For game studios

Implement transparent pricing: Always show the real‑world cost alongside virtual currency and disclose drop rates for randomized items where applicable.
Audit UX for dark patterns: Remove countdowns and manipulative prompts that create urgency or guilt to spend; use neutral reminders instead of hard sells.
Protect minors: Add clear age gates, optional spending limits, and parental consent flows for purchases above a threshold.
Offer non‑random purchase options: Make key cosmetics or progression items available via direct purchase or earned routes to avoid gambling‑adjacent mechanics.
Document compliance: Keep audit trails and consumer communication templates so you can respond quickly if regulators knock on your door.

For storefront operators

Standardize monetization labels: Create a “monetization nutrition label” developers must populate that shows randomization, purchase types, and whether minors are targeted.
Enforce age verification: Require verified age for titles flagged as high‑risk for aggressive monetization.
Harmonize refund policies: Provide clearer routes for consumers to dispute misleading in‑app practices and collect data to detect problematic patterns.

Industry precedents and recent enforcement (context for 2026)

Regulatory action against loot boxes and aggressive monetization has a history. Several EU agencies and national authorities have scrutinized randomized mechanics over the past few years — and platform operators have gradually tightened developer rules. AGCM’s 2026 intervention is significant because it targets a major publisher and combines allegations about both design‑driven compulsive play and opaque currency bundles.

That mix is potent: design complaints target behavior‑modifying elements, while transparency complaints are straightforward to remedy but morally required. The combination increases the likelihood of meaningful behavioral remedies beyond mere labeling.

What to watch next — Timeline & signals

Short term (0–3 months): AGCM will collect evidence and may request changes or interim measures. Watch for voluntary patch notes from publishers labeled as ‘compliance updates’.
Medium term (3–9 months): Possible fines or mandatory UX changes. Other EU regulators may open follow‑on probes.
Long term (9–24 months): New EU guidance or harmonized rules on digital monetization may emerge, and platform policies could be updated worldwide.

Real‑world example: Why Diablo Immortal is central here

Diablo Immortal offers a concrete case study. Players reported that key progression and high‑power items could be obtained faster through purchases of in‑game currency bundles (some advertised at values up to $200), while time‑limited events and randomized reward pools encourage repeated purchases. Even without declaring products as gambling, such systems can be seen as aggressive and opaque under consumer law.

As regulators press on these designs, publishers will need to demonstrate that purchases are voluntary, informed, and not the product of manipulative interfaces — a high bar when events and randomized pools are core to retention.

Practical checklist — Quick steps you can take now

Parents: Remove payment methods, enable purchase authentication, and set weekly spending allowances.
Players: Check what you’re actually buying — randomized boxes vs direct purchases — and prefer transparent pricing.
Developers: Audit UX for dark patterns and publish a clear monetization label.
Storefronts: Pilot a monetization label and require developers to disclose drop rates and purchase flows.

Bottom line — What this means for the future of mobile monetization

AGCM’s probe of Activision Blizzard isn’t just about two games; it’s a test case for how far consumer protection agencies will go in policing modern monetization. In 2026, regulators have more tools and political will than at any point in the last decade. If AGCM imposes strict remedies, we’ll likely see faster industry adoption of transparent pricing, better parental controls, and a gradual decline of the most predatory mechanics. That shift could be a win for trust‑based monetization — studios that pursue transparent, fair models may see long‑term gains in retention and reputation.

Final takeaways

Immediate action matters: Parents and players can reduce risk now with platform tools and awareness.
Regulatory pressure will grow: AGCM’s probe could catalyze broader change across the EU and globally.
Design choices are legal choices: UX and monetization mechanics will increasingly be subject to consumer law scrutiny — studios must adapt.

Want a practical one‑page checklist to protect your family or your players? Sign up for our newsletter to get a downloadable guide with step‑by‑step settings for iOS, Android, and major game storefronts, plus a developer compliance checklist you can use today.

Call to action: Stay informed — subscribe for weekly briefings on game industry law, monetization trends, and in‑depth audits of the biggest titles. If you’re a parent or player worried about a specific purchase, contact your consumer protection agency and check our guide to filing refunds in the EU and beyond.

Unknown

Contributor

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