The EU’s Digital Fairness Act is still a draft, yet it already sends shockwaves through a €27 billion industry that actually works. Millions of people play free-to-start games built by European studios that became global benchmarks. Now, regulators in Brussels want to rewrite the very mechanics that made them thrive, coins, daily rewards, and retention loops, under the banner of “consumer protection.”

Let’s pause. Protection against what, exactly?

Supercell’s Ilkka Paananen says it bluntly: “Don’t kill one of Europe’s few tech success stories.” He’s right to worry. If every in-game coin becomes a financial instrument, game design turns into accounting. A free-to-play loop becomes a compliance form. The risk is not abstract; it’s another IDFA moment waiting to happen, where regulation written for one purpose quietly crushes innovation for a decade.

Yes, manipulation exists. Yes, children need transparency. But Europe already has parental tools, age ratings, and clear disclosure laws. The idea that 98 percent of parents can manage screen time while regulators cannot grasp how a login bonus works says something deeper about trust and about how policy is made when fear replaces literacy.

The gaming sector has done something few others in Europe have achieved: scale cultural exports built on creativity, technology, and data. It learned to monetize attention without gatekeepers. Now the same success triggers suspicion. It’s a recurring European paradox: we demand innovation, then regulate it out of existence.

Real fairness means nuance. It means drawing a line between exploitative design and positive engagement, not erasing the line entirely. It means involving designers, not just lawyers, in shaping policy. Because once you outlaw every psychological mechanic, you also erase what makes interactive art powerful: choice, reward, emotion, and flow.

The sound of regulation isn’t always a hammer. Sometimes it’s the quiet click of a door closing, the one that once led from Helsinki to global markets.

Are we protecting consumers or punishing creators? Who will explain to Brussels that attention can be designed responsibly? And when the next Ilkka Paananen warns us again, will anyone still be listening?

More By This Author: