Italy Turns Spotlight on Mobile Gaming Tactics as Regulators Probe Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard

Italy has opened a fresh front in Europe’s widening scrutiny of mobile gaming, launching two investigations into Microsoft-owned Activision Blizzard over the design and monetisation of its hit smartphone titles Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile.

The probes, announced by Italy’s competition watchdog, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), accuse the company of deploying “misleading and aggressive” sales practices that may nudge players — especially children — into excessive playtime and repeated in-game spending without a clear understanding of the real cost.

At the heart of the investigation is not whether the games are popular, but how that popularity is monetized. The regulator says certain design elements are engineered to create urgency and fear of missing out, pushing users to stay online longer and to make purchases to avoid losing rewards or falling behind other players. According to the AGCM, these mechanics may distort consumer behaviour, particularly among minors who are less able to assess financial consequences.

The authority is also focusing on the way the games present their virtual currencies. By selling in-game currency in bundles and separating it from real-world prices, the regulator argues that players may lose track of how much money they are actually spending. This, it said, can result in users paying far more than is strictly necessary to progress in the game, sometimes without being fully aware of the total outlay.

Both titles are marketed as free-to-play, a business model that dominates mobile gaming globally. While downloading the games costs nothing, players are offered a steady stream of optional purchases ranging from cosmetic upgrades to items that speed up progress or unlock additional content. In Diablo Immortal, some bundles and progression-boosting items can cost as much as $200, and regular players often make multiple purchases over time.

The AGCM acknowledged that such monetization models are common across the industry. However, it stressed that scale and vulnerability matter. Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile each have hundreds of thousands of active players, including younger users, making the potential consumer impact significant.

A key strand of the investigation centers on parental controls and child protection. The regulator said the default settings in both games allow minors to make in-game purchases, play for extended periods without restrictions, and interact freely with other players via in-game chat. In the authority’s view, placing the burden on parents to actively change settings — rather than making protections the default — may fall short of the level of care expected in products accessible to children.

Privacy is also under scrutiny. The AGCM said it is examining whether the games’ sign-up flows encourage users to grant broad consent for data collection by steering them toward accepting all options at once. Regulators will assess whether Activision Blizzard’s consent mechanisms for collecting and using personal data meet Italy’s consumer protection and data transparency standards.

“In the Authority’s view, the company may be acting in breach of consumer protection rules and, in particular, the duty of professional diligence required in a sector that is particularly sensitive to the risks of gaming-related addiction,” the AGCM said.

The investigations add to a growing regulatory push across Europe and beyond to rein in so-called “dark patterns” in digital products — design choices that subtly influence users’ decisions in ways that benefit companies financially. Mobile games, with their blend of psychology, rewards, and microtransactions, have increasingly become a focal point of that debate.

The probes come at an awkward moment for Microsoft. The tech giant completed its acquisition of Activision Blizzard to strengthen its gaming portfolio and expand its reach in mobile and cloud gaming. While the Italian investigations do not imply guilt at this stage, they raise questions about how far regulators are willing to go in challenging the foundations of free-to-play monetization.

Depending on the outcome, the cases could force changes to how in-game purchases are presented, how minors are protected by default, and how consent for data use is obtained. More broadly, they may signal a tougher regulatory climate for mobile gaming companies operating in Europe, where consumer protection authorities are increasingly willing to test the line between engagement and exploitation.