The Rise of Aggressive Monetization: Italy’s Investigations into Activision Blizzard Explained

Hook: Why every gamer and developer should care about Italy’s probe

If you’re a mobile gamer tired of surprise charges or a developer trying to balance revenue with trust, Italy’s new probe into Activision Blizzard is a red flag and a roadmap at the same time. The Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) has opened investigations into Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile, targeting what it calls “misleading and aggressive” tactics. For players this could mean stronger protections and easier refunds; for studios it signals an urgent need to rethink product design and monetization. For the industry as a whole, this is another inflection point in the shift away from predatory microtransaction patterns toward clearer, more sustainable models.

What the AGCM is actually investigating (and why it matters)

In January 2026 the AGCM announced two formal probes into Activision Blizzard’s most lucrative smartphone titles. The regulator’s statement focuses on several recurring design features: countdown timers and scarcity messaging that encourage lengthy play sessions and spur purchases, opaque virtual currency bundles that hide the real cost-per-item, and mechanics that may specifically push younger players to spend without fully understanding the cost.

“These practices, together with strategies that make it difficult for users to understand the real value of the virtual currency used in the game and the sale of in‑game currency in bundles, may influence players as consumers — including minors — leading them to spend significant amounts, sometimes exceeding what is necessary to progress in the game and without being fully aware of the expenditure involved.” — AGCM (Jan 2026)

That language matters. The AGCM is framing the issue not as abstract ethics but as consumer harm: players are being led to spend more than they intended because of how games are designed. This ties directly into existing EU consumer protection laws (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and domestic implementations) and Italy’s authority to police misleading and aggressive commercial behavior.

Breaking down “misleading” and “aggressive” in legal terms

“Misleading” and “aggressive” aren’t marketing buzzwords here — they’re legal categories. Under EU and Italian consumer law, authorities evaluate whether commercial practices distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer. In practice, that assessment looks at:

• Clarity of price and value: Are players able to understand what they are buying? Hidden conversion rates, bundled currency packs with confusing math, and “you’ll need X to finish” messaging can be treated as misleading.
• Transparency of odds: For randomized rewards (loot boxes), regulators consider whether odds are disclosed and whether the mechanics resemble gambling.
• Pressure and urgency: Time-limited offers, false scarcity, and persistent pop-ups can be judged as aggressive because they push consumers into hasty decisions.
• Vulnerability of the target: If a practice specifically targets minors or exploits cognitive biases common in children, courts and regulators often impose stricter scrutiny and harsher penalties.

In short, the AGCM’s probe is asking whether the game design itself — not just the advertisements around it — constitutes a commercial practice that deprives players of informed choice.

How Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile fit the bill

Both games are advertised as “free-to-play” but include mechanics that accelerate progression or deliver desirable cosmetics in exchange for real money. The AGCM specifically called out:

• Opaque virtual currency systems: Bundles that obscure the per-unit cost and make it hard to compare value between purchases.
• Urgency and scarcity mechanics: Limited-time offers and countdowns that encourage emotional rather than rational purchase choices.
• Progression paywalls: Purchases that shorten grind paths, which may coerce spending to keep up in competitive systems.

Diablo Immortal’s high-tier packs and single purchases that can run into the low hundreds of dollars—alongside randomized reward systems—are now under review for whether they create unfair pressure or conceal the real cost of progress. Call of Duty Mobile’s tactics around daily rewards and time-limited bundles are similarly being checked for aggressive nudges.

Regulatory context in 2025–2026: a quick timeline

The AGCM’s action arrives amid a wave of regulatory scrutiny across Europe and beyond. Key trends from late 2025 to early 2026 to keep in mind:

• European regulators have continued to push for clearer disclosures on loot boxes and in‑game purchases, with multiple member states updating guidance and enforcement priorities.
• National competition authorities are increasingly treating certain in‑game design patterns as unfair commercial practices rather than purely entertainment choices, broadening enforcement tools.
• Industry pushback—publishers continue to argue that consumer choice and voluntary spending models support free-to-play ecosystems—but regulators are demanding demonstrable transparency and safeguards for minors.

That environment means a national regulator like AGCM can set precedents that ripple across the EU market.

Possible outcomes of the AGCM probe — and what they would mean

No single outcome is guaranteed, but the AGCM has a range of tools and remedies. Here are the most likely scenarios and their wider implications:

1) Enforce transparency and labeling

AGCM could require explicit disclosure of: real-world cost per virtual currency unit, odds for randomized items, and clear labeling that a game contains in‑game purchases. The impact: better-informed players, easier cross-game price comparison, and possibly minor short-term reduction in impulse purchases.

2) Demand UX changes (ban specific dark patterns)

Regulators could order the removal of countdown timers, aggressive pop-ups, auto-yes purchase flows, or any UI elements judged to exert undue pressure. For developers it means reworking design and potentially re-evaluating A/B tests that previously optimized for conversion at any cost.

3) Monetary penalties and refunds

If AGCM concludes there was a breach, it can impose fines and require compensation to affected consumers. That has been a costly outcome for companies in other sectors and would create immediate business incentives to avoid future rulings.

4) Targeted protections for minors

Possible remedies include stronger age verification, mandatory parental consent for purchases, and spending caps on accounts identified as belonging to minors. This would significantly affect games whose monetization depends on younger demographics.

5) Precedent for EU-wide policy

Even if the formal action is Italy‑specific, AGCM decisions often influence other EU regulators. A harsh ruling could accelerate EU-level legislative moves to standardize requirements across member states.

How mobile monetization economics could shift

Design and regulation changes will impact the core unit economics of mobile games. Expect to see several near-term and medium-term shifts:

• Less reliance on gambling-like mechanics: Publishers may pivot away from randomized loot boxes toward direct-purchase cosmetics, battle passes, or subscription access where value is explicit.
• Growth of subscription & pass models: Predictable revenue models (season passes, subscriptions) reduce regulatory risk and offer stable LTV (lifetime value).
• Higher CAC and lower ARPDAU trade-offs: Removing manipulative UX that boosted conversion may raise customer acquisition cost or lower average revenue per daily active user, forcing optimization of retention and engagement instead of monetization pressure.
• Premium-priced bundles vs unbundled clarity: Developers may shift to transparent, single-item pricing rather than bundled currency packs that obscure unit economics.

Practical, actionable advice — For players

If you’re a mobile player who’s been annoyed or burned by in‑game purchases, here’s what you can do today:

• Audit your accounts: Check purchase history on Apple App Store / Google Play and within the game. Request refunds promptly for unexpected charges.
• Set spending limits: Use device-level parental controls or app-store purchase limits; set one-time card numbers if your bank offers them.
• Learn the real cost: Do the math on currency packs—divide the bundle price by the currency amount to get the true per-item price.
• Report aggressive practices: File reports with national consumer protection agencies if a game uses manipulative mechanics—your complaints help regulators build cases.
• Use community intelligence: Follow reputable gaming outlets and watchdogs for warnings on problematic monetization tactics.

Practical, actionable advice — For developers and studios

If you build mobile games, don’t wait for a regulator to force change. Here are concrete steps to reduce legal risk and build player trust:

1. Run a monetization compliance audit: Map every place money exchanges hands and evaluate it for clarity, pressure, and age sensitivity.
2. Expose real‑money equivalents: Always show the real-world cost alongside virtual currency prices and the per‑item cost of bundles.
3. Disclose odds for randomized rewards: Publish actual drop rates and ensure they’re accessible without extra clicks.
4. Remove or soften urgency dark patterns: Replace hard countdowns and persistent pop-ups with informative prompts and cooling-off periods.
5. Build in spending controls: Allow easy, account-level caps and parental locks with verifiable consent mechanisms.
6. Test ethically: Include player welfare metrics (e.g., complaint rates, refund requests) in A/B tests, not just revenue lift.
7. Document decisions: Maintain compliance records and user research demonstrating good-faith design choices — crucial if regulators ask for evidence of intent.

What this all means for GameFi and NFT experiments

Emerging monetization trends like in-game NFTs and tokenized economies face heightened regulatory risk. If mechanics can obscure real-world value or create gambling-like randomized outcomes, they’ll attract the same scrutiny—and likely more—given crypto’s cross-border complications. Expect tighter rules around token sale disclosures, marketplace transparency, and explicit labeling of real-world value in GameFi titles.

Real-world examples and industry signals

The AGCM action isn’t happening in a vacuum. Recent years have seen national regulators and consumer watchdogs worldwide push for clearer game monetization practices. Where operators preemptively redesigned systems to be more transparent, consumer trust and long-term retention improved. Conversely, heavy-handed enforcement (fines, forced refunds) can hit short-term revenue hard but often nudges the market toward sustainable models.

How to watch the AGCM probe unfold (and why to care)

Key milestones to track:

• AGCM’s formal findings and any interim measures (possible UX changes while the investigation runs).
• Legal actions or appeals by Activision Blizzard / Microsoft — they may negotiate commitments rather than full litigation.
• Follow-on actions by other EU regulators — a coordinated approach could create EU-wide expectations.
• Industry responses — changes to Terms of Service, new spending controls, or shifts to subscription models will indicate how publishers are adapting.

Subscribe to official AGCM releases, major industry outlets, and legal commentators focused on consumer law to stay ahead.

Final take: A turning point for mobile monetization

The AGCM’s investigations into Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile are a high-stakes test of how far regulators will go to stop what they consider exploitative monetization. For players, this could mean safer experiences and simpler refunds. For studios, it’s a clear market signal: monetize transparently or risk legal and reputational costs. The long-term winners will be developers who prioritize sustainable monetization that balances revenue with respect for consumer choice—especially for minors.

Actionable checklist: What to do next

• Players: Audit purchases, set limits, and report aggressive flows to consumer agencies.
• Developers: Conduct a compliance and UX audit, publish odds, add spend caps, and document decision-making.
• Industry watchers: Track AGCM publications and cross-border regulator statements for precedent-setting rulings.

Call-to-action

Want a developer-ready checklist and UX audit template that aligns with 2026 regulatory expectations? Sign up for our newsletter and get the downloadable compliance kit sent to your inbox. Stay informed—these investigations will shape how mobile games make money for years to come, and early action protects both players and your bottom line.

Related Reading

• Deploying a Lightweight, Trade-Free Linux Distro Across Dev Workstations
• What Retail Leadership Moves Mean for Boutique Car Accessory Stores
• Resident Evil: Requiem UK Launch Guide — Platforms, Preorders, and What to Expect on Feb 27
• Pitching to YouTube: Email & Deck Templates Inspired by Broadcaster Partnerships
• Turn a Film ARG Into a Pop-Up Sale: Lessons from the Silent Hill Campaign