On September 17, the European Commission released a draft of the so‑called EU KIDS Act – an acronym for Keeping Internet Digital Spaces Accountable and Trustworthy. While the most contentious provisions target social networking sites and video‑sharing platforms – for example, an outright ban on users under 13 and tighter controls for those under 15 – the proposal also reaches deep into the world of online gaming, artificial‑intelligence companions, chat‑bots, app stores and operating systems. This article focuses on the sections that directly affect video games and explains what developers should expect if the act eventually becomes law. ### Scope and Reach of the Draft If the regulation is adopted, it will apply to every online game that is offered to consumers inside the European Union, regardless of where the publisher is based.
The definition of "online game" is deliberately broad; it could encompass everything from user‑generated‑content platforms like Roblox to the multiplayer component of a traditional console title that is sold on a physical disc. The only clear exemption is for games that exist solely on physical media and have no online functionality at all. A more ambiguous situation arises for titles that are not officially sold in the EU but still attract European players through foreign storefronts such as the US Apple App Store.
In those cases, the act may still apply unless the service can demonstrate that it is primarily an educational tool operated by schools or non‑profit organisations, which are explicitly excluded. ### Protecting Minors from Excessive Play The act defines a "minor" as anyone under the age of 18.
Under this definition, providers must take steps to ensure that their products do not actively encourage excessive usage by young people. Features that reward players for logging in daily, or that penalise them by removing benefits if they skip a session, are likely to be deemed non‑compliant when the target audience includes minors. While a clever technical workaround might exist – for instance, offering the same reward structure without tying it to a strict time schedule – the draft makes clear that such mechanics are viewed with suspicion and will be scrutinised closely.
### Implications for Loyalty and Retention Mechanics The KIDS Act goes beyond the traditional concerns of age‑rating bodies such as PEGI (Europe) and USK (Germany). It raises a broader question for designers of persistent‑world games: does the overall design of the world create a hidden incentive for minors to return at regular intervals? Even in the absence of explicit daily‑login bonuses, a game that continues to evolve while the player is offline – for example, by advancing story events or granting other players an advantage – could be interpreted as a subtle pressure to stay constantly engaged.
Developers will need to evaluate their entire gameplay loop, not just isolated reward systems, to determine whether the experience could be construed as pulling minors back on a schedule. ### Communication Controls and Age Verification Another cornerstone of the draft is the requirement to limit direct contact between minors and other users. To meet this obligation, online‑game providers will have to implement robust parental‑control tools and age‑assurance mechanisms. Unlike the strict EU‑wide age‑verification solution demanded of social networks and video platforms, games are permitted to use proportionate methods such as age estimation algorithms, provided these tools are accurate, respect privacy and do not discriminate.
Simple self‑declaration will never be sufficient. When a game is distributed through an app store, part of the verification burden can be shifted upstream – the store already checks the user’s age and, with the player’s consent, can forward that information to the game. ### A New Legal Code of Conduct for Games The draft also proposes a "Code of Conduct" that would build on the existing PEGI framework, turning what is currently a voluntary rating system into a legally binding set of obligations. This raises a potential clash with national youth‑protection regimes, especially in countries like Germany where the USK (Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle) already operates under statutory authority.
The KIDS Act does not appear to leave much room for the USK to regulate the same issues of excessive use and open communication that the EU legislation addresses. Consequently, a debate may emerge over whether the EU or individual member states retain primary competence in this area. Historically, youth protection has been a national competence, but the EU is increasingly seeking harmonisation across the bloc.
### Transparency of Virtual‑Currency Transactions Recital 40 of the proposal states that minors should receive clear information about the real‑world monetary value of any virtual‑currency purchases and should be protected from variable‑reward systems such as loot boxes. Interestingly, while this language appears in the introductory recitals, the operative clauses only extend the monetary‑transaction rules to social networks, video‑sharing platforms, AI companions and general chat‑bots – not to online games themselves. This discrepancy could be a drafting oversight or a deliberate decision to address game‑related monetisation transparency through the aforementioned Code of Conduct rather than direct regulation. Either way, stakeholders should expect continued discussion on this point during the legislative process, particularly as the EU Digital Fairness Act – another upcoming piece of legislation – is likely to touch on the same issues.
### AI Companions and Chatbots in Games A novel aspect of the KIDS Act is its regulation of "general conversational chatbots" and, specifically for the games sector, "AI companions." These systems must avoid design elements that foster emotional dependence and cannot, by default, reuse personal data from previous interactions with minors unless it is necessary for safety. If an online game embeds an AI companion within a social‑network or video‑sharing environment, the act imposes additional safeguards: the AI must not be auto‑activated, must not be prominently displayed, and minors must be able to opt‑out at any moment.
Not every AI feature used in a game will be classified as an "AI companion." The key test is whether the system simulates or facilitates a social, emotional, or interpersonal relationship with the user. For instance, large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the fictional player avatar rather than directly with the real person might fall outside the definition. However, the legislation also captures tools that merely enable such a relationship, potentially widening the net to include sophisticated dialogue systems that adapt to a player’s behaviour.
Developers should therefore conduct a careful analysis of any AI‑driven interaction to determine whether it triggers the companion provisions. ### Content and Interaction Controls for Minors The act obliges game providers to supply content‑control utilities that let minors manage the material they encounter and to offer feedback mechanisms that have an immediate and lasting effect. In addition, interaction controls must be available so that young players can adjust how they communicate, create content and engage with other users within the service.
All safety tools, informational prompts and required disclosures must be easily reachable and presented in language that minors can understand without difficulty. ### Enforcement and Penalties The existing enforcement framework of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) will cover most online‑game providers, while AI companions and chatbots will fall under the AI Act’s regime. Non‑compliant operators could face fines of up to 6 % of their global annual turnover.
Each member state will need to designate a regulator responsible for supervising compliance in the gaming sector, creating a parallel national oversight structure that works alongside the EU‑wide mechanisms. ### Timeline and Likelihood of Adoption The KIDS Act is drafted as a regulation, meaning that, once adopted, it will apply directly in all EU member states without the need for national transposition. The text is still a proposal and must be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.
Historically, the interval between a first draft and final adoption spans one to two years, but the Commission appears to be pushing for a faster schedule. Given the growing political appetite across Europe – and indeed worldwide – to regulate digital platforms that affect children, the chances of the act being enacted, perhaps even in an accelerated form, are high. ### What Game Designers Should Do Now The immediate question for developers is whether to build robust age‑verification and feature‑restriction systems or to design games that are universally accessible, eliminating any mechanics that could be deemed problematic for minors.
Both approaches have trade‑offs: the former may preserve premium or time‑gated content for adult players, while the latter could simplify compliance but potentially reduce monetisation opportunities. Early assessment, legal consultation and iterative design reviews will be essential to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape. *Dr. Andreas Lober is a partner at ADVANT Beiten, advising leading game companies on youth‑protection and consumer‑law matters.
He acknowledges contributions from colleagues Lennart Kriebel and Fabian Eckstein.*