Designing Against Addiction: What Developers Can Learn from Italy’s Probe

Hook: Why you should care — and act — right now

As a developer you face a familiar tension: monetize to sustain your studio, but not at the cost of player trust, reputation, or legal exposure. If you’re reading this in early 2026, Italy’s AGCM probe into major mobile titles is a wake-up call — regulators no longer treat aggressive, opaque monetization as harmless business. This impacts your roadmap, retention strategy, and long-term player relationships.

Topline: What happened and why it matters for developers

In late 2025 and early 2026 Italy’s competition regulator, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), opened investigations alleging misleading and aggressive sales practices in popular free-to-play games. The concerns focus on UI patterns and economy designs that nudge players — including minors — into extended sessions and in-game purchases using pressure, FOMO mechanics, unclear virtual currency valuation, and bundled currency pricing that conceals real 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... 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 (2026)

For developers this is not just regulatory noise. It means: customer trust declines if players feel exploited; platform partners and stores may tighten policies; and legal risk grows for teams that ignore transparent, humane design. The smart move is proactive: redesign systems to be ethical first, effective second.

What “ethical game design” looks like in 2026

Ethical game design balances sustainable revenue with player autonomy, clarity, and wellbeing. In 2026 that means three core principles:

• Transparency: Players must understand the exact real-money cost and expected outcome of any purchase.
• Agency: Purchases should be optional paths, not the only path to meaningful progression.
• Proportionality: Systems should avoid exploiting psychological vulnerabilities (FOMO, variable-ratio rewards) especially for minors.

Why these matter to product teams

Transparent, humane monetization reduces refund rates, stabilizes long-term retention, widens the audience, and lowers regulatory risk. Short-term spikes from exploitative A/B variants (e.g., random loot with high drop-pressure) often come with long tail churn and PR costs.

A developer’s playbook: Concrete UX and monetization changes

Below are practical, actionable recommendations you can apply this week. They’re grouped by priority so teams can triage work based on risk and impact.

High priority (do this now)

• Show real-money equivalence upfront: Always display how much a pack or currency bundle costs in local currency and native units before any confirm dialog. Replace vague currency bundles with unit pricing (e.g., “10,000 Gems = $19.99 — 2.0¢/Gem”).
• Clear purchase flow with cool-off: Add a one-screen summary that shows total cost, what the user will receive, and a 10–15 second delay/confirmation or “cool-off” action for large purchases above a threshold (e.g., $50).
• Remove or modify exploitative timers: Any countdown that pressures purchase to avoid loss should default to showing the exact probability, duration, and alternatives. Replace false scarcity with limited-time content that’s cosmetic, not progression-critical.
• Implement spend caps and alerts: Provide optional daily/weekly spend caps and automatic alerts at configurable milestones (e.g., 75%, 100% of cap). For accounts flagged as minors or registered with family controls, enforce stricter caps.

Medium priority (plan in next sprint)

• Revise economy to reduce pay-to-win gates: Progression-affecting purchases should be balanced against non-purchase paths that remain meaningful and timely. Make boosters convenience multipliers, not mandatory shortcuts.
• Separate content and advantage: Lead with cosmetic and social items for monetization. If you sell progression boosts, also offer time-earning alternatives (events, skill-based challenges).
• Make bundles transparent: Break down bundle contents and per-item value. Avoid surprise “mystery” bundles that hide cost/value relationships.
• Age gating and consent flows: Integrate robust age verification and parental-consent UX where required by law. Show parental dashboards with purchase history and spend controls.

Longer-term (Q2–Q4 roadmap)

• Invest in fair reward schedules: Move away from variable-ratio reward loops that maximize session length. Design predictable, meaningful rewards that reward skill, social play, and consistency.
• Telemetry for welfare metrics: Expand analytics to include welfare-oriented metrics (session fragmentation, purchase clustering by child accounts, time-of-day spending spikes). Use these to detect exploitative patterns.
• Design for opt-in ads: If you use rewarded ads, make them entirely optional, clearly labeled, and not required for basic progression.

Audit checklist: How to assess your game for “addictive” UX

Run this audit on your live game or prototype. Prioritize items that affect minors or high-value purchases.

• Does every purchase display exact local-currency cost and itemized contents before confirmation?
• Do you have bundles whose real value is opaque? (Yes → mark for rework.)
• Are countdown timers used to pressure purchases? (If yes, document purpose and alternatives.)
• Is there evidence that top 1% spenders drive >50% revenue? (If yes, consider cap experiments.)
• Do purchase flows have friction-free one-click buys without clear cost summary? (If yes, add a confirmation step.)
• Are minors or underage accounts making purchases? (If yes, add age verification and family controls immediately.)
• Do onboarding and tutorials encourage daily compulsive sessions with exploitative variable rewards? (If yes, redesign for predictable milestones.)

Design patterns to avoid — and humane alternatives

Below are common dark patterns and practical replacements you can implement.

Dark pattern: Variable-ratio rewards focused on monetization

Why to avoid: Hooks players into long sessions and unpredictable spending. Risk: regulatory scrutiny and ethical issues.

Humane alternative: Use predictable, escalating rewards tied to skill and time-invested milestones. If you include randomness, disclose odds clearly and limit purchases tied to RNG outcomes.

Dark pattern: Hidden currency math and confusing bundles

Why to avoid: Players can unknowingly spend more than intended and perceive deception.

Humane alternative: Show both currency and real-money equivalence, and add a ‘price breakdown’ button for bundles.

Dark pattern: Timers and false scarcity to force purchases

Why to avoid: Creates FOMO-driven purchases and pressure on vulnerable players.

Humane alternative: Use limited-time offers focused on cosmetics or exclusive but non-essential convenience. Offer repeated opportunities or rotate content instead of one-shot pressure events.

Dark pattern: Obscured refund and cancellation policies

Why to avoid: Damages trust, increases dispute rates, and attracts regulators.

Humane alternative: Make refund windows, cancellation flows, and subscription terms obvious before purchase and accessible in account settings.

Measuring success: KPIs that align revenue with player welfare

Traditional metrics (ARPDAU, LTV) matter, but add welfare-aware KPIs and monitor them alongside financials:

• Spend Concentration Ratio: % of revenue from top 1%/5% of spenders.
• Purchase Timing Index: Proportion of purchases occurring during late-night sessions or immediately after long sessions.
• Refund & Dispute Rate: Purchases disputed within 30 days — can signal confusing flows.
• Session Fragmentation: Average session length distribution — extreme elongation can indicate exploitative hooks.
• Family-Control Utilization: Use rate of parental controls and opt-ins — high use can limit risk.

A/B testing ethically: rules for experiments

When you test monetization variants, follow these guardrails to avoid harm:

• Pre-define harm thresholds: Stop experiments that increase refund or dispute rates by >X% or lead to >Y% increase in late-night purchases.
• Limit exposure: Avoid subjecting minors or high-risk cohorts to exploitative variants. Use exclusion lists for vulnerable accounts.
• Measure long-term retention: Don’t judge success on 7-day revenue spikes alone; track 90-day retention and LTV.
• Transparency in consent: If experiments materially change purchase UX, disclose to participants in testing cohorts.

Case study: How a hypothetical mid-size studio responded

Studio X ran a quick audit after AGCM made headlines. Their mobile RPG had several red flags: opaque gem bundles, timers tied to progression boosts, and a top-heavy spend distribution. Their plan over three months:

1. Immediate patch: Add currency-to-USD conversion and per-item breakdown to all stores.
2. Two-week fix: Replace hard-progression timers with repeatable weekly time-gated challenges that reward non-paying play.
3. One-month release: Launch parental dashboard and spend caps with email receipts for large purchases.
4. Quarter roadmap: Rework economy to reduce reliance on boosters; introduce a subscription that provides predictable, transparent value and a cosmetic-only premium track.

Result after six months: short-term ARPDAU dipped 8% but 180-day retention rose 12% and refund rates fell by half. Public sentiment improved; user reviews and store ratings increased, stabilizing revenue while reducing legal exposure.

Legal & platform landscape in 2026 — what to watch

Regulators in 2025–2026 focused on fairness in digital goods. AGCM’s probe is emblematic of a wider shift in Europe. Developers should anticipate:

• Greater scrutiny of in-game currency bundling and hidden pricing.
• Mandatory disclosure regimes in some jurisdictions for odds and pricing.
• Platform-level policy updates that may require clearer labels, parental controls, or even limits on certain monetization mechanics.

Proactive compliance and clear UX are cheaper than retroactive redesign after an enforcement action.

Final checklist: Quick wins to implement this sprint

• Add local-currency price and unit pricing to every purchase screen.
• Introduce optional spend caps and automatic alerts.
• Audit timers, random rewards, and bundle descriptions for opacity and pressure cues.
• Publish a clear in-app receipt and a visible refund policy link.
• Exclude minors from high-risk experiments and add parental consent paths.

Parting recommendations — design with the long game in mind

Monetization that respects players builds durable communities and reduces regulatory and reputational risk. The AGCM investigations underline a simple truth for 2026: exploitative short-term gains will be challenged — legally, commercially, and culturally. Design systems that are fair, transparent, and that reward sustained engagement rather than habit-formed spending.

For teams: start small and iterate. Replace dark patterns, measure new KPIs, and communicate changes to your community. If you treat players as partners instead of targets, retention rises and monetization becomes sustainable.

Call to action

Ready to make the change? Run the audit checklist above on your next build, schedule a two-week sprint to fix the highest-risk UX issues, and share your results with your peers. Join developer forums, submit policy questions to your legal team, and push for humane monetization in your studio — the future of healthy game economies depends on it.

Related Reading

• Stunt-Proof Salon Launches: What Stylists Can Learn from Rimmel x Red Bull’s Gravity-Defying Mascara Event
• Hostel & Cabin Lighting: How a Portable RGBIC Lamp Transforms Small Travel Spaces
• Product Comparison: FedRAMP-Certified AI Platforms for Logistics — Features and Tradeoffs
• Dog-Friendly Running Gear: Jackets, Reflective Vests, and What to Wear for Cold Park Runs
• Long-Term Stays: Are Prefab and Manufactured Units the Best Budget Option?