In-game currencies under scrutiny: ‘Not being gambling’ does not automatically mean they are permitted

Virtual currencies such as coins, gems or V-Bucks are an integral part of many games. Users first purchase virtual currency and then use it to buy digital items, additional skills, other extra content or even surprise packs, known as ‘loot boxes’.

It is precisely this model that is now coming under increased scrutiny from European consumer protection authorities. It is usually difficult to convert the purchase price of virtual currency units directly into real money. The CPC Network of EU consumer protection authorities therefore published guidelines as early as 2025, stating that, under consumer law, purchases made using virtual currencies should, in principle, be treated in the same way as purchases made with real money. Prices must also be clearly displayed in euros; conversion systems must not obscure the actual costs; and users must not be pressured into purchasing larger currency packs than necessary.

The authorities are particularly critical of, for example:

• conversion systems that are difficult to understand,
• the denial of statutory rights of withdrawal,
• forced residual balances in the form of currency packages that cannot be fully used up due to the prices of digital goods (a currency package contains, for example, 2,500 coins, whilst each individual digital item costs 700 coins),
• the associated pressure to purchase further currency packs,
• artificial scarcity of digital items, e.g. in the form of time-limited promotions,
• eye-catching purchase options and
• direct calls to purchase aimed at children.

In parallel, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled at the end of 2025 that the ‘FIFA Ultimate Team Packs’ specifically examined in that case – generally also referred to as ‘loot boxes’ – do not constitute gambling. The decisive factor in this specific case was that success in the football game itself, even when using the contents of the packs (such as particularly good players like Lionel Messi), did not nevertheless depend predominantly on chance, and furthermore, the contents of the packs cannot be freely realised economically.

However, this Supreme Court ruling does not amount to a carte blanche for loot boxes. Even if these may be permissible under gambling law, just like in-game currencies, risks relating to fair trading, consumer protection or the protection of minors may still exist.

For providers, therefore, the entire monetisation structure is increasingly coming to the fore: price disclosures, virtual currencies, purchase incentives, user interfaces and the handling of minors will in future be at least as important as the question of whether a randomisation mechanism is to be classified as gambling.

Conclusion

The regulatory debate is increasingly shifting from gambling law to consumer and fair trading law. What matters is not only what is being sold, but also how virtual currencies, prices and purchasing processes are structured. For games providers, the greatest legal risk in future will often lie not in the loot box itself, but in the mechanisms surrounding its marketing.