Top 5 most conflictive legal issues when creating video games in 2026

Why this is decided at design, not at launch

There is a practical reason to insist on "before you start": each mechanic on this list is structural. A virtual currency's economy, a random-rewards system or a store's design are not pieces you tweak with a patch: they are the game's architecture. Fixing them in a published title means redesigning monetisation, rebuilding interfaces and, often, explaining it all to an angry community and to a regulator already knocking at the door.

The other reason is context: European and national regulators have moved from warnings to action, with investigations into specific games and increasingly detailed guidance on virtual currencies, minors and interface design. The wind blows in one direction only: more transparency and less pressure on the player. With that frame, on to the list.

Number 5: artificial intelligence and its labelling

The use of technologies such as voice cloning or image generation is already subject to European transparency obligations: the Artificial Intelligence Regulation requires informing users when they interact with AI systems and labelling certain artificially generated or manipulated content, notably content simulating real people, voices or events.

For a studio the task has two parts. The first is inventory: identifying where in the game and the production AI is used (synthetic character voices, generated art, conversational NPCs, machine translations). The second is compliance: applying the labelling and user information each use requires. We covered the European Regulation and the Spanish bill in detail in our article on the AI law, and the intellectual property side (who authors generated content) in this other one. The short rule here: if the player could mistake the artificial for the real, you must tell them.

Number 4: chats, lobbies and player content

Social features (chats, lobbies, user-generated content) can create safety risks, especially for minors, and the European digital services framework takes them seriously: services hosting user interactions and content must provide accessible reporting systems, internal procedures to handle harmful content and reinforced protection mechanisms for vulnerable users.

In practice, a game with chat needs the same things as a miniature social network: a visible report button that actually works, an internal circuit that reviews and responds, filters and muting options, and protective default settings where the user may be a minor. The specifics on minors (age verification, parental controls, commercial communications) are covered in our article on protecting minors; the design takeaway is blunt: if your game lets strangers talk to children, moderation is not an optional feature, it is a launch requirement.

Number 3: virtual currencies and the hidden price

Third place goes to an omnipresent mechanic: the real price of items being hidden behind complex conversions or currency bundles (you buy 1,050 gems for 9.99 euros, the item costs 700 gems, and good luck working out how much money that is). The intended result is that the player does not understand how much money they are actually spending.

That lack of price transparency can qualify as a misleading practice towards consumers, and European consumer authorities have put virtual currencies at the centre of their agenda, with guidance all pointing the same way: show the real-money equivalence of prices expressed in virtual currency, avoid bundles engineered to leave unusable leftovers and set understandable conditions on the currency's use. The underlying principle is old and healthy: players are entitled to know what they are paying, even when the shop window is decorated with gems.

Number 2: loot boxes, between consumer law and gambling

The silver medal goes to the sector's classic: failing to clearly disclose the existence of random rewards or the real odds of obtaining them remains one of the industry's most controversial elements.

Today's minimum standard is twofold. On the self-regulation side, PEGI already requires flagging paid random content and, since this year, its presence conditions age ratings, as we explained in detail in our article on the new PEGI criteria. On the consumer side, information about odds and how the mechanic works must be clear and available before purchase.

And there is a frontier no studio should cross without advice: where real money is involved and the items obtained acquire value outside the game (resale markets, exchange for money), the mechanic can edge towards gambling regulation, with its licensing and sanctions regime. In Spain, moreover, specific regulation of random reward mechanisms has been announced for years and could arrive in any legislature. The key lies in transparency and in avoiding models that combine real money, chance and external value: that triad is what turns a monetisation mechanic into a different league of problem.

Number 1: dark patterns, the champion of conflict

And number one, beyond any doubt: pushing players into decisions they would probably not take naturally. So-called dark patterns top European regulatory attention because they attack the foundation of all consumer law: the free and informed decision.

In games they take very recognisable forms: timers generating artificial urgency ("the offer expires in 59 seconds"), messages appealing to the fear of losing rewards (the expiring pass, the breaking streak), systems that make cancelling difficult, currencies and discounts engineered to cloud the maths, and structures that incentivise impulsive purchases or artificially prolong play sessions.

The European framework already expressly prohibits interfaces that deceive or manipulate users, and misleading or aggressive commercial practices are banned in general. The regulatory direction, moreover, is unequivocal: Europe's digital fairness agenda points straight at these techniques. The design recipe is easy to state: transparent interfaces and features that exert no artificial pressure on the player. Making buying easy has never been illegal; making not buying difficult, increasingly so.

The common thread and the checklist

Reread the list and all five entries share a skeleton: transparency (the player knows what is AI, what things really cost, what the odds are, who they are talking to) and absence of pressure (they decide without manufactured urgency or mazes). Design with those two compasses and half your compliance is done before you talk to any lawyer.

Our design-stage checklist, for the project's first meeting:

• AI: inventory of uses and a labelling and user-information plan.
• Social: reporting system, moderation circuit and protective defaults for minors.
• Economy: visible real-money equivalences, no leftover-engineered bundles, understandable currency terms.
• Randomness: published odds, correct PEGI flagging and no trace of the real money, chance and external value triad.
• Interface: zero artificial urgency, cancelling as easy as subscribing, and an external review of the purchase flow looking for exactly what a regulator would look for.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on Artificial Intelligence (EUR-Lex)
• Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Digital Services Act (EUR-Lex)
• Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (EUR-Lex)
• European Commission: consumer protection in video games (virtual currencies)