On 17 September 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 debated provisions target social networks and video‑sharing services – for example, an outright ban for users under 13 and stricter limits for those under 15 – the text also contains a substantial set of rules that affect online games, AI companions, chat bots, app stores and operating systems. This article unpacks the sections that are directly relevant to the gaming sector.
If the legislation is eventually adopted, it will apply to every online game that is offered to consumers within the EU. The definition of "online game" is deliberately expansive; it could encompass everything from user‑generated‑content platforms such as Roblox to the multiplayer component of a traditionally single‑player, disc‑based title.
The only clear exemption is a physical disc game that contains no online functionality whatsoever. A more ambiguous scenario involves titles that are not actively marketed in the EU but still attract European players through foreign storefronts, such as US‑based platforms. Those services would likely fall within the scope unless they can demonstrate that they are primarily educational tools operated by schools or other non‑profit organisations, which are explicitly excluded. One of the core obligations for online‑game providers is to ensure that the product does not actively encourage excessive use by minors.
Under the KIDS Act, a "minor" is anyone under the age of 18. Consequently, mechanisms that reward players for logging in daily – such as login bonuses, streak rewards, or the loss of benefits after a period of inactivity – could be deemed non‑compliant when they target minors. While it may be technically possible to design a version of these features that satisfies the regulation, the draft makes clear that the authorities view such incentives with suspicion and will likely scrutinise them closely.
These concerns intersect with existing age‑rating systems like PEGI in Europe and USK in Germany. However, the KIDS Act takes a less nuanced approach than the rating bodies, which could create practical difficulties for games with persistent worlds. In a live‑service environment, the mere fact that the game world continues to evolve even when a player is offline can be interpreted as a subtle penalty for not returning regularly.
Designers will therefore need to shift their thinking from "Should we reward daily play?" to "Does the overall design of the game pull minors back on a set schedule?" – a much harder line to draw. The draft also mandates tighter controls over communication between minors and other users. To meet this requirement, providers will generally need to implement parental‑control tools and robust age‑verification mechanisms. Unlike social networks, which must use a dedicated EU‑wide age‑verification solution, games are allowed to rely on proportionate methods such as age estimation, provided these methods 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 compliance burden can be shifted upstream: the store already performs an age check, and, with the user’s consent, can forward that information to the game. Another noteworthy element is the proposed "Code of Conduct" for age‑rating and online games.
The intention appears to be to turn the largely voluntary PEGI framework into a legally binding set of rules. This raises questions about how the new EU‑wide obligations will interact with national youth‑protection laws that already exist in many member states. Germany provides a useful case study: it operates a dual system of state‑level regulations and the USK self‑regulatory scheme, both of which have legal backing.
The KIDS Act seems to leave little room for the USK to continue regulating excessive usage and open communication, areas that German law currently assigns to it. The result could be a jurisdictional clash over whether the EU or individual member states hold the primary authority in this space. Historically, youth protection has been a national competence, but the EU is increasingly seeking to harmonise standards across the bloc.
The draft also revisits a long‑standing criticism of the games industry: the opacity surrounding virtual‑currency transactions and variable‑reward mechanisms. Recital 40 states that minors should receive clear information about the real‑world monetary value of in‑game purchases and be shielded from systems that provide unpredictable rewards. While the language appears in the introductory recitals, the operative provisions on monetary transparency are limited to social networks, video‑sharing platforms, AI companions and general chatbots – not directly to games. This discrepancy may be a drafting oversight or a deliberate decision to address game‑related transparency through the separate Code of Conduct rather than the main body of the regulation.
Either way, the issue is likely to surface again during the legislative debate, especially since similar concerns were slated for the forthcoming EU Digital Fairness Act. Artificial‑intelligence companions and conversational chatbots are also subject to new rules. The KIDS Act requires that AI systems avoid design elements that could foster emotional dependency with minors, and they must not automatically utilise personal data from previous interactions unless it is needed for safety. If an AI companion is embedded in a game that is hosted on a social‑network or video‑sharing platform, the AI must not be auto‑activated, must not be prominently displayed, and minors must be able to opt‑out at any time.
Not every AI feature used in games will fall under the definition of an "AI companion." The key test is whether the system simulates or facilitates a social or emotional relationship with the user. Large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the in‑game avatar rather than directly with the player may escape the definition, but the regulation also captures tools that merely enable such relationships, potentially widening the net. Furthermore, the act obliges game providers to supply content‑control tools that let minors manage the material they encounter and provide feedback that has an immediate, lasting effect.
Interaction controls must also be offered, allowing young players to adjust how they communicate, create content and engage with other users. All safety features, informational prompts and controls must be easy to locate and presented in language that minors can understand.
Enforcement will be carried out under the existing EU Digital Services Act (DSA) framework for most services, while AI companions and chatbots will fall under the AI Act. Non‑compliance can result in fines of up to 6 % of a company’s worldwide annual turnover. Each member state will need to designate a regulator responsible for overseeing game‑related compliance.
The KIDS Act is drafted as a regulation, meaning it would be directly applicable in all EU member states once adopted. The text is still a proposal and must still be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Historically, the legislative process for EU regulations takes one to two years from first draft to final adoption, but the Commission appears to be pushing for a faster timetable.
Observers note that the Commission has already presented a fully detailed text rather than a high‑level outline, suggesting an intent to move quickly. Given the global focus on regulating social media and digital platforms, it is unlikely that the KIDS Act will be abandoned. In fact, many countries are watching the EU’s approach closely, and the act could become a model for future legislation elsewhere.
Because several of its provisions could directly affect core gameplay mechanics – such as reward structures, social interaction features and AI companions – game developers should start evaluating the potential impact now. The practical question for designers is whether to rely on age‑verification and restrict certain features for minors, or to design the experience in a way that all players, regardless of age, can safely access the full range of features. Both approaches have trade‑offs, and the optimal strategy will depend on the specific game, its target audience and the business model.
Dr. Andreas Lober, a partner at ADVANT Beiten, advises leading game companies on youth‑protection and consumer‑law matters.
He acknowledges contributions from colleagues Lennart Kriebel and Fabian Eckstein in preparing this analysis.