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 media platforms and video‑sharing services – for example, a complete ban for users under 13 and tighter limits for those under 15 – the regulation also reaches into the realm of online gaming, artificial‑intelligence companions, chat bots, app stores and operating systems. This article focuses on the sections that directly affect video games. If the draft eventually becomes law, its scope will cover every online game that is marketed or sold within the EU.
The definition of "online game" is intentionally broad; 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 for games that exist solely on physical media and have no online functionality. A grey area emerges for titles that are not officially sold in the EU but still attract European players through foreign storefronts, such as US‑based digital stores. However, services that are primarily educational and operated by schools or non‑profit organisations are excluded, as are certain charitable platforms.
One of the core obligations placed on online‑game providers is to avoid encouraging excessive use by minors – defined by the Act as anyone under 18 years of age. Features that reward players for logging in daily, or that penalise them for taking a break (for instance, loss of bonuses after a period of inactivity), are likely to be prohibited for under‑18 users. While clever work‑arounds might be imagined, the draft makes clear that such mechanisms are viewed unfavourably and could be deemed non‑compliant. These concerns echo recent debates around age‑rating systems such as PEGI in Europe and USK in Germany, but the KIDS Act takes a less nuanced approach.
It forces designers to consider not just explicit loyalty schemes but any element that could be interpreted as pulling a minor back into the game on a schedule. In a persistent‑world environment, the mere fact that the world continues to evolve in the player's absence can already function as an implicit pressure to return, even if no daily reward exists. Consequently, the design question shifts from "Should we offer a daily login bonus?" to "Does the overall experience create a schedule that nudges minors to play repeatedly?" – a far more complex assessment.
The draft also mandates stricter controls over communication between minors and other users. To meet this requirement, game operators will generally need to implement parental‑control tools and age‑verification mechanisms.
Unlike social networks, which must use a dedicated EU‑wide age‑verification system, games may rely on proportionate methods such as age estimation, provided these methods are accurate, privacy‑friendly, and non‑discriminatory. 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, as the store already checks the user’s age and can forward that information to the game with the user’s consent. Another notable element is the proposed "Code of Conduct" for age‑rating and online games.
The intention appears to be to transform the largely voluntary PEGI framework into a legally binding regime. This raises questions about the interaction with national youth‑protection laws. In Germany, for example, the USK rating system is backed by federal legislation and already governs many aspects of game content and interaction.
The KIDS Act seems to leave little room for the USK to address the new concerns around excessive usage and open communication, potentially sparking a jurisdictional debate over whether the EU or individual member states should have final authority. Monetisation transparency is also revisited. Recital 40 of the draft states that minors should receive clear information about the real monetary value of virtual‑currency transactions and be protected from variable‑reward systems – a clear reference to loot boxes. However, the operative text only applies those economic‑transaction rules to social networks, video platforms, AI companions and generic chatbots, not directly to games.
This discrepancy may be a drafting oversight or a deliberate choice to handle game‑related transparency through the separate Code of Conduct. Either way, the issue is expected to surface again during legislative negotiations, especially as the EU Digital Fairness Act – which also targets loot‑box transparency – is slated for introduction later this year. The KIDS Act also introduces new provisions for "general conversational chatbots" and, importantly for the gaming sector, "AI companions." These systems must avoid design choices that foster emotional dependence and must not, by default, reuse personal data from prior interactions with minors unless it is necessary for safety. When AI companions are embedded within games that are offered via a social‑network or video‑sharing platform, they must not be auto‑activated, must not be prominently displayed, and minors must be given a clear opt‑out option at any time.
Not every AI feature in a game will be classified as an "AI companion" under the Act. The definition hinges on whether the system simulates or facilitates a social or emotional relationship with the user. For instance, large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the player’s avatar rather than directly with the real person may fall outside the scope. Yet the wording also covers tools that merely enable such a relationship, potentially widening the net.
Finally, the legislation requires game providers to supply robust content‑control tools that let minors manage and give feedback on the material they encounter, with effects that are both immediate and lasting. Interaction controls must also be available, allowing young players to adjust how they communicate, create content, and interact within the service. All safety features, informational prompts, and controls must be easy to find and presented in language that minors can understand.
Enforcement will be carried out under the existing EU Digital Services Act framework for most services, while AI companions and chatbots will fall under the AI Act. Non‑compliant operators could face fines up to 6 % of their global annual turnover, and each member state will need to designate a regulator to oversee compliance for online games. The KIDS Act is intended as a directly applicable EU regulation, but the text is still a draft and must be approved by both the European Parliament and the member states.
Historically, the interval between a first proposal and final adoption spans one to two years, yet the Commission appears eager to accelerate the process. Given the worldwide focus on regulating social media and digital harms, the KIDS Act is unlikely to disappear and may even be fast‑tracked. For game designers, the crucial question now is whether to build age‑verification and feature‑restriction systems into their products, or to design experiences that are universally accessible without needing separate controls. The answer will shape development pipelines, monetisation strategies, and user‑experience design for years to come.
Dr. Andreas Lober, a partner at ADVANT Beiten, advises leading game companies on youth‑protection and consumer law. He acknowledges contributions from colleagues Lennart Kriebel and Fabian Eckstein.