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 media sites and video‑sharing services – for instance, a total ban for users under 13 and stricter limits for those under 15 – the text also contains a series of rules that affect online games, AI‑driven companions, chat bots, app stores and operating systems. This article examines the sections that are directly relevant to the gaming sector.
If the proposal eventually becomes law, it will apply to every online game that is offered to consumers in the EU, and it will impose sweeping constraints on many of the features that developers currently use to keep players engaged. The definition of "online game" is deliberately broad; it could encompass everything from sandbox platforms such as Roblox to the multiplayer component of a traditional console title. The only clear exemption is a game that is distributed solely on physical media and contains no online functionality.
A more ambiguous situation arises with titles that are not actively marketed in the EU but still attract European players – for example, a game sold only on a US storefront that is nevertheless played by EU residents. In those borderline cases, the regulation may still reach the provider, unless the service is explicitly designed for educational purposes and is operated by a school or another nonprofit educational body, which are expressly excluded.
One of the core obligations for online‑game providers is to ensure that their products do not actively encourage excessive use by minors. Under the KIDS Act, "minor" means anyone younger than 18. Consequently, mechanisms such as daily login bonuses, streak rewards, or penalties that remove benefits when a player does not log in for a certain period are likely to be prohibited for under‑18 users. While a clever technical workaround might be imagined, the draft makes clear that these kinds of incentives are viewed unfavourably regardless of how they are implemented.
These concerns echo recent debates around age‑rating systems such as PEGI in Europe and USK in Germany, but the KIDS Act takes a more blunt approach. The rule does not simply target obvious loyalty schemes; it also captures any design element that effectively penalises a player for not returning at regular intervals. In a persistent‑world environment, the very fact that the world continues to evolve even when a player is offline can be interpreted as a subtle pressure to log back in, even if no explicit reward system exists. For designers, the question therefore shifts from "Should we give a daily reward?" to "Does the overall structure of the game create a schedule that pulls minors back in?" – a far more nuanced and difficult line to draw.
The draft also mandates that contact between minors and other users be limited. To meet this requirement, game operators will generally need to implement parental‑control tools and age‑verification mechanisms. Unlike the strict, EU‑wide age‑verification solution required for social networks and video platforms, games are permitted to use proportionate methods such as reliable age‑estimation algorithms, provided those methods respect privacy, are non‑discriminatory, and are sufficiently accurate.
Simple self‑declaration will never be enough. When a game is distributed through an app store, part of the compliance burden can be shifted upstream, because the store already performs an age check and, with the user’s consent, can pass that information to the game.
Another notable element is the proposal for a legally binding Code of Conduct that would sit on top of the existing PEGI framework, which is currently voluntary in most EU countries. This raises the question of how the new code would interact with national youth‑protection laws that already impose mandatory rating requirements. Germany provides a clear illustration: the country has both state‑level regulations and the USK rating system, which is backed by national legislation.
The KIDS Act appears to leave little room for the USK to continue regulating the very issues the EU draft addresses – namely, excessive usage and open communication – potentially sparking a jurisdictional debate about whether the EU or individual member states should have the final say. Monetisation transparency is also addressed, albeit in a somewhat contradictory fashion. Recital 40 of the proposal states that minors should be given clear information about the real monetary value of virtual‑currency transactions and be protected from variable‑reward systems such as loot boxes. However, the operative sections of the act apply those transparency obligations only to social networks, video‑sharing platforms, AI companions and generic chatbots, not to online games.
This could be a drafting oversight or an intentional decision to handle game‑related monetisation issues exclusively through the proposed Code of Conduct. Either way, the topic is expected to be revisited during the legislative process, especially since the EU Digital Fairness Act – which also aims to regulate loot‑box‑like mechanics – is slated for a first reading later this year. The KIDS Act introduces a fresh set of rules for "general conversational chatbots" and, more pertinently for developers, "AI companions." These systems must avoid design choices that foster emotional dependency and must not automatically use personal data from previous interactions with minors, except where necessary for safety.
When an AI companion is embedded in a game that is delivered via a social‑network or video‑sharing service, additional safeguards apply: the AI cannot be auto‑activated, must not be prominently displayed, and must include an opt‑out option that minors can access at any time. Not every AI feature 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. For example, large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the fictional player avatar – rather than directly with the human player – might be interpreted as outside the scope, because the relationship is with the in‑game character, not the real person.
Nonetheless, the definition also covers technologies that merely enable such a relationship, which could broaden the net considerably. Beyond AI, the act requires game providers to give minors robust content‑control tools.
Players must be able to filter or flag content they find objectionable, and those choices must have an immediate and lasting effect. Interaction controls – such as options to limit chat, voice communication, or user‑generated content – must also be available and clearly presented in language that minors can understand. Enforcement will fall under the existing EU Digital Services Act framework for most services, while AI companions and chatbots will be overseen by 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 to monitor compliance for online games. The KIDS Act is intended to be a directly applicable EU regulation, but the draft still requires approval by the European Parliament and the Council of Member States. Historically, the gap between an initial proposal and final adoption spans one to two years, yet the Commission appears to be pushing for a faster timetable.
Given the worldwide focus on regulating digital platforms, the legislation is unlikely to disappear; it may even be fast‑tracked. For game designers, the practical question is whether to build robust age‑assurance systems and restrict certain features for minors, or to design a universal experience where all features are available to everyone, accepting that some functionalities may simply be off‑limits to younger players. The answer will shape development road‑maps, 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 matters. He acknowledges contributions from colleagues Lennart Kriebel and Fabian Eckstein in preparing this analysis.