The world of mobile and online gaming has become a playground not just for players but also for clever tactics that nudge us into decisions we might not otherwise make. Just now the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN) dropped a bombshell with its latest sweep, focusing on mobile and online games and uncovering a troubling trend: the widespread use of dark patterns. These sneaky design tricks—think nagging prompts, hidden costs, or endless loops that keep you spending—are steering players into choices that benefit game developers more than the gamers themselves. If you’re someone who’s ever wondered why you ended up buying that extra life or subscription you didn’t need, this report might explain a lot. With 26 consumer protection agencies from around the globe joining forces, the findings paint a vivid picture of an industry where player autonomy is often sidelined, and the implications stretch far beyond the screen.
The sweep, conducted between January 27 and 31, 2025, zeroed in on 473 mobile and online games, analyzing how they handle in-game purchases, subscriptions, and data collection. What they found was striking: 78% of the games reviewed used at least one dark pattern, with 64% employing two or more. That’s a significant jump from previous sweeps, signaling that these manipulative practices are becoming more entrenched. ICPEN defines dark patterns as design choices that deceive, coerce, or manipulate consumers, often hiding the true cost of engagement or making it tough to opt out. The report highlights six specific indicators—borrowed from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—to spot these tactics: sneaking, interface interference, forced action, social proof, obstruction, and nagging. Each one tells a story of how games are crafted to keep players hooked, sometimes at the expense of their wallets or privacy.
Take sneaking, for instance. This tactic involves burying important details, like auto-renewing subscriptions or hidden fees, where players might miss them. The sweep found that 45% of games used this approach, often by preselecting paid options or making it hard to spot the fine print. Interface interference was another big player, popping up in 39% of cases, where game layouts emphasize premium purchases over free alternatives, subtly pushing players toward spending. Forced action, seen in 12% of games, forces players to take steps—like watching ads or sharing data—to progress, while nagging—those relentless pop-ups urging you to buy something—appeared in 33% of the titles. Social proof, leveraging fake reviews or player counts to sway decisions, and obstruction, like making account deletion a maze, rounded out the list, each adding to the sense that players are being herded rather than choosing freely.
What makes this report stand out is its global scope. Agencies from countries like the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom collaborated, reviewing games in multiple languages and across various platforms. The diversity of the sample—ranging from casual puzzle games to competitive multiplayer titles—shows that dark patterns aren’t confined to one genre. A casual player might encounter a nagging prompt in Candy Crush, while a hardcore gamer could face interface interference in a battle royale. The report also notes that free-to-play games, which rely on in-app purchases, were the most frequent offenders, with 82% showing at least one dark pattern. This isn’t surprising—when your revenue hinges on optional spending, the temptation to nudge players is strong—but it raises questions about fairness in an industry that markets itself as entertainment.
The privacy angle adds another layer of concern. Many games use dark patterns to collect more data than necessary, often under the guise of enhancing the experience. The sweep found that 28% of games employed tactics that made it difficult to access privacy settings or opt out of data sharing, aligning with findings from the concurrent Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) sweep. This overlap underscores a growing intersection between consumer protection and privacy rights. For instance, a game might require you to log in with a social media account to unlock features, only to harvest your contacts without clear consent. Or it might bury the data policy in a multi-step process, hoping you’ll give up. These practices not only erode trust but also expose players to risks like identity theft or targeted advertising that feels uncomfortably personal.
The report doesn’t just point fingers it offers a roadmap for change. ICPEN isn’t here to shut down gaming; it’s pushing for better practices. The findings suggest that game developers should prioritize transparency, making costs and data use crystal clear from the start. They recommend simplifying opt-out processes, like unsubscribing from in-game offers, and avoiding preselected paid options. For regulators, the sweep is a call to action, urging stricter enforcement of existing laws and potentially new guidelines tailored to the gaming industry. Players, too, are encouraged to stay vigilant, reading terms carefully and reporting shady tactics to local consumer agencies. It’s a collaborative effort, but the onus is on developers to rethink how they balance profit with player well-being.
The timing of this sweep feels particularly poignant. Gaming has exploded in popularity, with mobile gaming revenue hitting $100 billion globally in 2024, according to industry estimates. That growth comes with pressure to monetize every click, and dark patterns are a cheap way to do it. But the backlash is brewing. Players are increasingly vocal on forums and social media, sharing stories of unexpected charges or frustration with manipulative designs. The ICPEN report cites examples like a game that locked progress behind a $9.99 “VIP” upgrade, only revealed after hours of play, or another that bombarded users with ads until they paid to disable them. These anecdotes resonate because they’re relatable—how many of us have felt tricked by a game we loved?
For privacy and consumer protection professionals, this report is a goldmine of insights. It’s a reminder that dark patterns aren’t just annoying—they can violate laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the U.S. if they obscure consent. The 78% figure is a wake-up call to audit game-related data practices, ensuring compliance with notification requirements and data minimization principles. Businesses might also look to the report’s examples of good practice—games that offer clear refund policies or easy account deletion—as benchmarks to follow. The collaboration with GPEN, which found similar issues in privacy settings, suggests that future sweeps might dig deeper into how these tactics intersect with data protection laws.
The cultural impact is worth pondering too. Gaming is often a social escape, a way to connect with friends or unwind after a long day. When dark patterns turn it into a battle of wits against the developers, that joy erodes. Parents, in particular, are raising alarms about kids being targeted—32% of the games reviewed were popular with younger audiences, and many used nagging or forced action to extract spending from unsuspecting players. This has sparked calls for age-appropriate design standards, echoing debates around age verification laws in other digital spaces. The ICPEN sweep might just be the catalyst for a broader conversation about ethics in gaming.
Looking ahead, the report hints at follow-up actions. While the sweep itself wasn’t an investigation, the data collected could trigger enforcement by individual agencies. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which participated, has a history of cracking down on deceptive practices, and this could spur fines or settlements. Developers might face pressure to overhaul their designs, especially as consumer awareness grows. For players, the report is a tool to demand better—next time you’re hit with a pop-up, you might think twice and report it. The gaming industry isn’t going anywhere, but this sweep suggests it’s at a crossroads: keep pushing dark patterns and risk regulation, or embrace transparency and build trust.
The ICPEN 2025 sweep on mobile and online games is more than a snapshot it’s a mirror held up to an industry at a turning point. With 78% of games using dark patterns, the problem is pervasive, but the solutions are within reach. It’s about striking a balance: letting developers thrive while ensuring players aren’t pawns in a profit game. As someone who’s navigated these virtual worlds, I can’t help but hope this report sparks a shift—because gaming should be about fun, not frustration. The ball’s in the industry’s court now, and the clock is ticking.
