Video gamers and their parents are giving a thumbs up to a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau interpretive rule that treats video game publishers like payment companies if their products involve in-game purchases.
The rule's future, however, is uncertain after President Donald Trump fired CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and named Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as the acting director on Monday. The Trump Administration is seen as more business-friendly than the Biden administration and could appoint a permanent director who is a less aggressive regulator.
The interpretive rule, which the CFPB announced on Jan. 10, would require video game publishers to provide a mechanism for players to dispute payments and offer refunds to fraud victims. In-game purchases, the rule says, will be regulated under the 1978 Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which provides protections for consumers who send money electronically.
While the rule does not specifically address cryptocurrencies — which some video game publishers accept for in-game payments — it does say that the bureau’s study of virtual assets in online payments is ongoing.
Parents expressed exasperation that their children are overspending or losing their accounts to bad actors, they said in comments submitted to the bureau's website. While the parents who weighed in did not give specific dollar values for the amount their children spent on in-game payments, some said their children blew past pre-set spending limits and used gift cards or family credit cards to make in-game purchases.
Of the nearly 90 comments submitted since Jan. 10, the majority appear to come from people who spoke in favor of the rule, and felt that video game publishers needed to be held accountable for problems with in-game payments. A small number came from supporters of cryptocurrencies, who said they wanted to continue using the digital assets for in-game transactions.
In games like Fortnite, players can buy items in an attempt to give themselves an advantage over other players, or pay for aesthetics like new uniforms and clothing accessories.
Research the bureau published in April showed that theft, scams, fraud and money-laundering were happening in these virtual marketplaces.
Games that allow in-game purchases "are one-sided, and they are often set up to make you buy more than you need or can use," said a gamer who identified himself as Robert Gilliam in a comment submitted on Jan. 10.
Gilliam — who did not say where he lives — said he plays the popular video games Helldivers and The Division 2, both of which have virtual currencies that players can use to buy in-game goods.Those in-game currencies "are exploitative and offer no real benefit to the consumer," he wrote.
Erin Sholar Wade, a commenter from Florence, Kentucky, said in a comment submitted Jan. 13 that her 15-year-old son frequently overspends on games like the popular multi-player shooter Fortnite. An account belonging to the commenter’s child was also taken over by a hacker and the response from Epic Games, which publishes Fortnite, was inadequate, according to the submission.
"When the account was fraudulently taken over, Epic did not offer solutions to correct and restore the original gaming account," Wade said. "We had to do our own investigation to drill down to when it was taken over, then call to ensure that the appropriate two-factor authentication was applied and established."
Another commenter who identified themselves as a business owner — but did not provide a name or location — said they play the online gaming platform Roblox — which lets users create and play their own games. “My main concerns are the lack of any possible compensation when an account is terminated," the commenter said. The support system for Roblox is "lackluster," the commenter’s Jan. 10 submission said.
Spokespeople for the Roblox Corporation; Epic Games, which publishes Fortnite; Ubisoft, which publishes The Division 2; and Sony Computer Entertainment, which publishes Helldivers, did not respond to requests for comment.
Not everyone thinks the interpretive rule is a good idea.
Video game companies should also be getting into the comments to oppose the rule, said Keith Barnett, an attorney for the law firm Troutman Pepper. A Troutman Pepper spokesperson said the firm does represent some video game companies.
Barnett called the regulation “dangerous.” “You are now engaging in the regulation of non financial institutions and imposing financial institution regulations on regular businesses,” he said.
The CFPB is putting too many companies under the banner of Regulation E, the rule that enforces the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which was passed before online payments were available to most people, Barnett said.
Video game publishers "are not financial institutions in the traditional sense," he said. "The CFPB is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole."
Instead, regulation E should be updated or another law should be passed to oversee game publishers, Barnett said.
