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 – imposing a complete ban for users under 13 and tighter limits for those under 15 – the proposal also contains a series of rules that affect online games, AI‑driven companions, chat bots, app stores and operating systems. This article focuses on 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 wide and could encompass everything from sandbox platforms such as Roblox to the multiplayer component of a traditional disc‑based title. Only games that are sold purely on physical media and lack any online functionality would be clearly exempt.
A gray area emerges for titles that are not officially marketed in the EU but still attract European players through foreign storefronts, for example a US‑based digital store. The draft does carve out an exemption for services whose primary purpose is education and that are run by schools or other educational organisations, as well as for certain non‑profit platforms. One of the core obligations for online‑game providers is to make sure that their products do not actively encourage excessive usage by minors. Under the KIDS Act, “minors” are defined as anyone under the age of 18.
Consequently, mechanisms such as daily login bonuses, streak rewards or the loss of in‑game benefits after a period of inactivity could be deemed illegal when they target or affect under‑18 players. While a technically compliant workaround might be imagined, the draft makes it clear that these kinds of inducements are viewed unfavourably regardless of the implementation.
These concerns echo recent debates surrounding age‑rating systems such as PEGI in Europe and USK in Germany, but the KIDS Act takes a more blunt approach. The regulation does not merely target obvious loyalty schemes; it also reaches into any design element that penalises a player for not logging in at specific intervals. In a persistent‑world environment, the mere fact that the game world continues to evolve even when a player is offline can be interpreted as a subtle pressure to return regularly.
For designers, the question therefore shifts from “Should we reward daily play?” to “Does the overall game architecture create a schedule that pulls minors back in?” – a far more complex judgment. The draft also mandates that interactions between minors and other users be limited. To satisfy this requirement, game operators will generally need to implement parental‑control tools and robust age‑verification mechanisms.
The obligations for games are lighter than those imposed on social networks: while platforms like TikTok must use a dedicated EU‑wide age‑verification solution, games may rely on proportionate methods such as age estimation, provided these methods are accurate, respect privacy and avoid discrimination. 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, because many stores already assess the user’s age and can, with the user’s consent, relay that information to the game.
A further element of the proposal is a new Code of Conduct for age‑rating and online gaming. The intention appears to be to elevate the largely voluntary PEGI framework into a legally binding regime. This raises questions about how the KIDS Act will interact with national youth‑protection laws that already enforce mandatory rating systems.
Germany provides a useful case study: it operates both state‑level regulations and the USK self‑regulatory scheme, which is backed by national legislation. The KIDS Act does not seem to leave much room for the USK to continue regulating the specific risks the Act addresses – namely excessive play time and open communication – even though German law currently assigns those responsibilities to the USK.
A broader debate may therefore emerge over whether the EU or individual member states hold the primary competence in this field. Historically, youth protection has been a national competence, but the EU has shown an increasing willingness to harmonise rules across the bloc. The draft also revisits a long‑standing concern for the games industry: transparency around virtual‑currency transactions and protection from variable‑reward mechanisms. Recital 40 of the proposal states that minors should receive clear information about the real monetary value of purchases made with virtual currencies and should be shielded from “variable reward systems,” a phrase that is commonly interpreted as a reference to loot boxes.
However, the operative text of the regulation only applies these economic‑transaction rules to social networks, video‑sharing platforms, AI companions and general conversational chatbots, not to online games themselves. This discrepancy may be the result of drafting oversight or a deliberate decision to address monetisation transparency for games via the separate Code of Conduct rather than the main body of the law. Either way, the issue is likely to be revisited during the legislative process, especially as it overlaps with the upcoming EU Digital Fairness Act, whose first draft is expected before the end of the year.
Another novel aspect of the KIDS Act is the regulation of “general conversational chatbots” and, notably for the games sector, “AI companions.” These systems must avoid design choices that foster emotional dependency, and they must not, by default, reuse personal data from prior interactions with minors unless it is strictly needed for safety. When AI companions are embedded in games that are delivered via a social‑networking service or a video‑sharing platform, additional safeguards kick in: the AI 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 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.
For example, large‑language‑model‑driven non‑player characters (NPCs) that converse with the player’s avatar rather than directly with the human player might be exempt, because the relationship is framed as in‑world rather than personal. Nevertheless, the definition also covers technologies that simply enable such a relationship, potentially widening the scope beyond what developers initially expect. Beyond AI, the Act obliges game providers to supply content‑control tools that let minors manage the material they encounter and give 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 others within the service. All safety features, informational notices and user‑interface elements required by the KIDS Act must be easy to find and presented in language that minors can understand.
Enforcement will be handled under the existing EU Digital Services Act (DSA) framework for most online services, while AI companions and chatbots will fall under the separate AI Act regime. Violations can attract fines of up to 6 % of a company’s worldwide annual turnover.
Each member state will need to designate a regulator responsible for overseeing compliance in the gaming sector. The KIDS Act is intended to be a directly applicable regulation, meaning it would take effect across all EU member states without the need for national transposition. The draft is still subject to approval by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and the legislative timeline for EU regulations typically spans one to two years from first proposal to final adoption. Nonetheless, the Commission appears eager to move quickly, having already published a detailed text rather than a high‑level outline.
Given the global focus on regulating social media and digital platforms, it is improbable that the KIDS Act will be abandoned; it may even be fast‑tracked. Because several of its provisions touch on core gameplay mechanics and design decisions, developers should begin assessing potential impacts now.
The practical question for game creators is whether to implement strict age‑verification and limit certain features for minors, or to design games in a way that all features are universally accessible without compromising compliance. Either approach will require careful legal review and likely adjustments to existing design pipelines. 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.