On 5 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in Žaidimų valiuta (C-472/24)[1] on the VAT treatment of (grey market) transactions concerning an in-game virtual currency (Gold) in Runescape, a game developed by Jagex. The Court held, in substance, that in-game Gold is not a virtual currency or a voucher. Rather, it is “an electronic service forming an integral part of [the] game“, and “the consumable benefit” the player receives. This led the Court to confirm that out of game trades between players concerning Gold were subject to VAT.
This blogpost is not about VAT rules. It discusses how the conclusion that Gold is not a virtual currency or a voucher may collide with recent positions taken by the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC Network) in its Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currency, in particular that in-game currency is a digital representation of value. It also examines how some of the Key Principles that rely on that assumption may be affected by the Court’s conclusions. The judgment should also be viewed in the context of the on-going discussions on the Digital Fairness Act.
Clash of clans: the (hotly) debated nature of in-game currencies
For those not fully acquainted with the current debate around the treatment of in-game currencies, here is a small recap.
In September 2024, BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, joined by 22 national member organisations, submitted Monetising Play, a complaint targeted at premium in-game currencies and their effects on players, particularly minors.[2] BEUC asked the Commission to consider a series of measures including a ban on premium currencies, especially for children, and used the Commission’s then-pending Digital Fairness Fitness Check as the vehicle for its recommendations.
In the Digital Fairness Fitness Check, published on 3 October 2024[3], and evaluating the UCPD[4], CRD[5]and UCTD[6] against the digital environment, the EC identifies “intermediate in-app virtual currencies” as a problem area, raising bundling and price presentation concerns. The Fitness Check however expressly left the question of whether the in-game spending of in-game currency gives rise to a contract subject to national law.[7]
In March 2025, the CPC published its Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currencies.[8] The Principles consider that in-game virtual currencies are “digital representations of value that are purchased with real-world monetary value and then used by consumers to pay a price in exchange for the supply of in-game digital service or content within a video game“. On that basis, the CPC interprets the UCPD, the CRD and the UCTD as applying not only to the player’s purchase of the in-game currency itself, but also to its later use inside the game. The Key Principles identify a series of “action points” or “practices to avoid”, drawing on the UCPD, the CRD and the UCTD. The CPC presents these action points as “minimum legal requirements” derived from existing law.
The industry and regulators openly clashed on this very issue in the consultation launched by the EC on the upcoming Digital Fairness Act.
Video Games Europe’s contribution to the DFA consultation[9] disagrees with the CPC’s characterisation, arguing that in-game currencies are digital content under the Digital Content Directive (DCD) and not “digital representations of value” within the meaning of recital 23 DCD. By contrast, the Dutch ACM argues that the EU legislator should clarify, by statute, that purchases conducted with paid IGVC are equivalent to ordinary distance contracts and yield equivalent consumer rights.[10]
What is Gold?
Runescape is a fantasy multiplayer game developed by Jagex and launched in 2001. It has its own in-game currency: Gold. Gold is earned by players who complete tasks, defeat monsters and trade with non-player characters and other players. Inside the game, Gold is used to buy in-game items, services, status upgrades and access to certain events and mini-games. Under Jagex’s terms of service, players do not own Gold or any other in-game asset; ownership of all such assets remains with Jagex. Real-money trading of Gold is actually contractually forbidden. However, a grey market exists. Žaidimų valiuta MB (“game currency” in Lithuanian) buys Gold from individual players and resells it to other players, communicating through online platforms and “delivering” the Gold by meeting the buyer at an agreed location inside the game.
The Court’s judgment
To escape (or minimize) VAT taxation, the applicant brought 3 arguments: that Gold is a non-traditional currency exempt under Article 135(1)(e) VAT Directive (relying on Hedqvist, C‑264/14[11], which concerned Bitcoin transactions); failing that, that Gold is a multi-purpose voucher under Article 30a, with VAT due only on redemption; and in any event, that only the dealer’s margin should be taxable. Following Advocate General Kokott, The Court rejected each. The first two are what is of interest for this blogpost.
On Article 135(1)(e), the Court restated the two cumulative conditions from Hedqvist: a non-traditional currency falls within the exemption only where the parties accept it as an alternative to legal tender and it has no purpose other than to be a means of payment.[12] Gold did not meet the first condition. The Court found that “‘Gold’ has no purpose other than to be used within an online video game and that it does not therefore constitute a currency accepted outside that game as a means of payment in order to obtain real goods or services.” (para. 28)
The Court added that this conclusion is reinforced by Runescape’s terms of service, under which players do not even own the Gold.
The Court likewise rejected the idea that Gold could be characterized as a voucher, laying down instead that Gold is actually part of the service / game:
“Since it constitutes one of the elements of an online game, ‘Gold’ is in itself akin to an electronic service forming an integral part of that game. […] ‘Gold’ thus constitutes the consumable benefit in the present case, that is to say the service received by the beneficiary and used as such by the latter in the online video game. Accordingly, ‘Gold’ does not serve, like a voucher, to procure a subsequent consumable benefit in the form of another as yet unspecified service.” (para. 32)
Having excluded the application of the two exemptions, the Court thus concluded that transactions concerning Gold should be subject to VAT.
Three tensions with the Key Principles
The CPC’s central premise to several of its Key Principles is that paid in-game virtual currencies are digital representations of real-world monetary value, whose primary function is to act as a method of payment for in-game digital content. The Court’s central characterisation, applied to essentially the same kind of token, is that in-game money is itself the consumable benefit, “an electronic service forming an integral part of [the] game” (para. 32).
The Court’s pronouncements thus appear to be more in line with the position of the video game industry, limiting “digital representations of value” (as per recital 23 DCD) to electronic vouchers or e-coupons.
Of course, it is worth keeping in mind that the Court’ judgment concerns VAT rules. VAT and consumer protection are separate fields with their own logic, and the characterisation of Gold under Article 135(1)(e) VAT Directive does not automatically govern the characterisation of paid IGVC under the UCPD, the CRD and the UCTD. But the Court’s reasoning in paragraph 28 and 32 really turns on a factual question – what is the nature of the token used inside the game. It would seem strange to accept that an IGVC is a virtual currency for the purpose of consumer laws but not for the purpose of VAT rules.
Implications
Assuming that the Court’s judgment would have implications on EU consumer laws, not all CPC Key Principles would be equally affected. Several of them apply either at the moment a real-money contract is concluded for IGVC, or at the level of game design and contract terms, rather than at the level of any in-game transaction.
For example, Principle 6 on fair contract terms applies to the player’s contract with the publisher and to the terms of service. Principle 7 on consumer vulnerabilities is a cross-cutting design and parental-control standard. Principle 4, requiring inter alia pre-contractual CRD information for the purchase of IGVC, sits squarely on a real-money contract – all sides appear to agree on that.
But other Principles depend more fundamentally on treating in-game spending of IGVC as the conclusion of a new B2C contract. Principle 1 requires that the price in real-world money “of in-game digital content or services” be displayed clearly and prominently for items offered in-game and acquired with IGVC. Principle 4extends the full set of CRD Article 6 information duties to in-game spending. Principle 5 extends the 14-day right of withdrawal under Articles 9 to 16 CRD to the in-game use of IGVC for any “in-game digital content or services“. Each of these assumes that the in-game spending event is itself the conclusion of a contract, and that the IGVC is money (or a virtual representation of it).
That’s where the tension with Žaidimų valiuta is the most apparent. Paragraph 32 characterises the in-game use of Gold to acquire a virtual item as the use of a service already supplied to the player at the moment the IGVC was bought. A right of withdrawal under Articles 9 to 16 CRD presupposes a contract; the Court’s reasoning implies that the in-game use of Gold is not the formation of a new B2C contract, but the consumption of the consumable benefit already received. Likewise, the pre-contractual information duties of Article 6 CRD presuppose a contract being entered into; but following the Court’s analysis, what happens at the in-game point of “purchase” is not contract formation. Last, real-money price-tag obligations under Article 6(1)(e) CRD presuppose that the in-game item has a real-money price separate from the price paid for the IGVC; on the Court’s analysis, the in-game item is the consumable benefit of the same electronic service, not the object of a separate consumer contract priced in fiat currency.
Conclusion
Žaidimų valiuta is, formally, a VAT case. It does not therefore directly feed into the interpretation of consumer-protection law. But the Court has now characterised one central concept of the CPC Network’s Key Principles – paid in-game virtual currency – in terms that are at odds with the CPC’s own characterisation of it. The implications appear significant when looking at Principles 1, 4 and 5; less so for Principles 4, 6 and 7. It will be interesting to see how the CPC and the Commission engage with this tension going forward and whether they will seek to address it in the DFA discussions.
[1] Judgment of 5 March 2026, MB “Žaidimų valiuta” v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, C 472/24, ECLI:EU:C:2026.
[2] BEUC, Monetising Play: Regulating in-game and in-app premium currencies, BEUC-X-2024-061, September 2024.
[3] Commission Staff Working Document, Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness, SWD(2024) 230 final, 3 October 2024 (“Digital Fitness Check”), available here.
[4]Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, (“UCPD”), available here.
[5]Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, (“CRD”), available here.
[6] Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (“UCTD”), available here.
[7] Digital Fitness Check, notably at p. 77 and 156.
[8] CPC Network, Key Principles on In-game Virtual Currencies, 21 March 2025.
[9] Video Games Europe, Public consultation and call for evidence for the Digital Fairness Act impact assessment, October 2025 Policy Paper.
[10] ACM, Better protection for players of video games: A specific response on gaming to the European Commission’s public consultation on the Digital Fairness Act, October 2025.
[11] Judgment of 22 October 2015, Skatteverket v David Hedqvist, C 264/14, EU:C:2015:718
[12] Žaidimų valiuta, paras. 23 to 26.
Leave a Reply