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 debated provisions target social networks and video‑sharing services – for instance a blanket ban for users under 13 and tighter limits for those under 15 – the text also contains a substantial set of rules that affect online games, AI companions, chatbots, app stores and operating systems. This article examines the game‑specific elements of the proposal and explains what developers may need to prepare for if the act eventually becomes law. ### Scope and Applicability If the regulation is adopted, it will apply to every online game that is offered to consumers in the EU, regardless of where the developer or publisher is based.
The definition of “online game” is deliberately broad; it could encompass everything from user‑generated‑content platforms such as Roblox to the multiplayer component of a traditional console title. The only clear exemption is for games that are distributed solely on physical media and have no online functionality. A gray area exists for titles that are not sold directly in the EU but still attract European players through foreign storefronts (for example, a US‑based platform). However, services that are primarily educational and operated by schools or other educational organisations are excluded, as are certain not‑for‑profit platforms.
### Preventing Excessive Use by Minors The act defines “minors” as anyone under 18 years old. Providers will be required to demonstrate that their games do not actively encourage excessive play among this age group. Features that reward players for logging in daily, or that penalise them for taking a break – such as loss of bonuses after a period of inactivity – are likely to be deemed non‑compliant for minors.
While a technically compliant workaround might be imagined, the draft makes clear that such mechanisms are viewed unfavourably and could attract regulatory scrutiny. ### Impact on Loyalty and Retention Mechanics The new rules go beyond the obvious loyalty‑program concerns. They also target any design element that effectively pressures a young player to return at set intervals. In persistent‑world games, the very fact that the world continues to evolve even when a player is offline can be interpreted as an implicit penalty, because progress may be missed.
Consequently, designers will need to shift their focus from asking “Should we reward daily play?” to a broader question: “Does the overall game structure create a schedule that pulls minors back in regularly?” This is a much harder line to draw and may require rethinking core gameplay loops. ### Communication Restrictions and Age‑Verification The draft also mandates that contact between minors and other users be limited. To meet this requirement, game providers will generally need to implement parental‑control tools and reliable age‑assurance mechanisms. Unlike social networks, which must use a dedicated EU‑wide age‑verification system, games are allowed to rely on proportionate methods such as age estimation, provided they are accurate, respect privacy and are non‑discriminatory.
Simple self‑declaration will never be sufficient. When a game is distributed through an app store, part of the verification can be delegated upstream – the store already checks the user’s age and, with consent, can pass that information to the game.
### Codes of Conduct and PEGI Integration A separate provision proposes a code of conduct for age‑rating and online‑game practices, effectively turning the largely voluntary PEGI system into a legally binding framework. This raises questions about the relationship between EU‑wide rules and national youth‑protection laws. Germany, for example, already has a comprehensive set of regulations administered by the USK (the industry‑run rating body) and reinforced by national statutes.
The KIDS Act appears to leave little room for the USK to address the very issues the act targets – excessive usage and open communication – which could spark a jurisdictional debate over whether the EU or individual member states retain competence in this area. ### Transparency of Virtual‑Currency Transactions Recital 40 of the proposal states that minors should receive clear information about the real‑world monetary value of virtual‑currency purchases and be shielded from variable‑reward systems. The language suggests an intent to curb loot‑box‑like mechanics, yet the operative text limits the monetary‑transaction rules to social networks, video platforms, AI companions and general chatbots, not to online games. This inconsistency may be a drafting oversight or a deliberate decision to address monetisation transparency for games through the proposed code of conduct rather than the main body of the act.
Either way, the issue is expected to be debated further during the legislative process, especially as it overlaps with the forthcoming EU Digital Fairness Act. ### AI Companions and Chatbots in Games The KIDS Act introduces a new regulatory layer for “general conversational chatbots” and, more pertinently for the industry, “AI companions.” Such systems must avoid design choices that foster emotional dependency and must not, by default, reuse personal data from prior interactions with minors unless it is strictly necessary for safety. When AI companions are embedded in games that are delivered via a social‑network or video‑sharing service, additional safeguards apply: 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 a game will fall under the definition of an AI companion.
The key test is whether the system simulates or facilitates a social, emotional, or interpersonal relationship with the user. Large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the player’s avatar rather than directly with the player may be exempt, but the definition also covers tools that merely enable such relationships, potentially widening the net. ### Content‑Control and Interaction Tools Providers will be required to give minors robust content‑control options, allowing them to filter or provide feedback on the material they encounter, with effects that are both immediate and lasting. Interaction controls must let young users adjust how they communicate, create content and engage with others within the service.
All safety features, informational prompts and control panels must be easily reachable and presented in language that is understandable to children and teenagers. ### Enforcement and Penalties The enforcement framework will largely follow the EU Digital Services Act, except for AI companions and chatbots, which fall under the AI Act. 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 with the KIDS Act for online games. ### Timeline and Outlook The draft is a regulation, meaning it would apply directly in all EU member states once adopted, without needing national transposition. It still requires approval by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, a process that typically takes one to two years.
Nevertheless, the Commission appears to be pushing for a rapid rollout, having already published a fully fleshed‑out text rather than a high‑level outline. Given the worldwide focus on regulating social media, the KIDS Act is unlikely to disappear; it may even be fast‑tracked. ### What Developers Should Consider Now Game studios should start evaluating whether to implement strong age‑verification and parental‑control solutions, or to redesign core mechanics so that they are universally accessible without penalising minors.
The choice will affect everything from reward structures and progression systems to how AI‑driven characters are integrated. Early engagement with legal counsel and compliance experts is advisable, as the final shape of the act – especially the interplay with existing national frameworks like Germany’s USK – remains uncertain. *Dr. Andreas Lober, partner at ADVANT Beiten, advises leading game companies on youth‑protection and consumer law.
He acknowledges contributions from colleagues Lennart Kriebel and Fabian Eckstein.*