The growing importance of the metaverse in recent years has led to its evolution into a global hub for showcasing creative digital content by brands and online users alike. Such content often results from the digitization of real-world trade mark or copyright subject matter, which is then minted into a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) or else, in metaverse-compatible format. Two court rulings from the past few years, Hermès v. Rothschild in the US and Vegap v. Mango in Spain, deal with complex intellectual property (IP) considerations in light of the digitization and use of IP content in the metaverse by artists. Taking these two cases as a point of reference, this paper examines the notion of ‘use’ through the lens of European trade mark and copyright law. First, it explores instances whether the metaverse ‘uses’ of digitized IP content in question would satisfy the legal tests for infringement under the EU law regime. Second, it investigates whether certain metaverse ‘uses’ may be considered fair, or permissible, on the given facts and to what extent a balance can be achieved between the rights of IP proprietors and freedom of artistic expression.

The metaverse is a futuristic concept. It was first articulated in science fiction but has been pursued by corporations ever since. Due to technical limitations, the metaverse still lies in the future. Nevertheless, it is worthy of reflection today, also by legal scholars. The reason is that two arguably essential aspects of the metaverse, namely, interconnection between virtual worlds and a thriving creator economy, may never be achieved without legal intervention. In other words, whether the metaverse ever comes into existence depends not only on users and developers but also – even if more modestly – on lawyers. This paper shows how it starts by describing the metaverse, from its literary history to contemporary manifestations (Section 1), and then tackles two key issues, interoperability and mobile distribution, from a competition law and policy perspective (Section 2).

As cloud gaming redefines how users access and interact with videogames, it also introduces complex challenges around digital ownership and consumer rights – particularly in relation to in-game purchases. Unlike traditional gaming models, cloud-based platforms operate on multi-layered licensing agreements that restrict users’ ability to retain access to purchased digital goods when a game or platform becomes unavailable. This article examines the legal architecture of cloud gaming, focusing on the licensing models that govern user access to virtual assets. It identifies the inherent risks posed by platform dependency and the structural imbalance created by End-User License Agreements (EULAs), which routinely place users in a vulnerable position. The article critically evaluates the current consumer protection frameworks under UK and EU law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, and the upcoming EU Data Act, and questions whether these regimes are adequate to safeguard consumers from sudden loss of access to in-game purchases. Arguing that enforcement gaps persist despite existing protections, this article calls for a standardization of EULA terms that better reflect consumer rights, drawing on recent industry developments – such as Epic Games’ refund policies – as a potential model for reform. In doing so, it advocates for an ecosystem where digital entertainment and consumer protection coexist sustainably.

Cloud gaming technologies are reshaping the relationships between players, developers and platforms, raising questions about market dynamics and regulatory priorities. This article explores the development of cloud gaming technology and its regulation by competition law authorities by scrutinizing the concept of ‘innovation’ employed in recent high-profile inquiries, including the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard merger. In particular, the article argues that authorities’ focus on innovation overlooks the collaborative and iterative nature of creativity essential to the game industry’s diversity and growth. The article illustrates the potential risks to creativity in the cloud gaming market through two exemplary case studies. First, the article illustrates that through legal and technological restrictions, the scope for users to modify (‘mod’) cloud-based games and develop new post-release products is severely curtailed. Second, the article evidences how these limitations are heightened in developing virtual worlds (including the metaverse), forcing questions of interoperability and openness in business models. In both case studies, it is evident that the problems facing the sector go beyond those of monopoly to more fundamental issues of market dynamics and definitions. The article concludes by advocating for a recalibration of the values of competition law to account for the dynamic and process-orientated nature of creativity.

Metaverses (now ‘rebranded’ as virtual worlds) are going to be the ‘digital and phygital platforms’ in the immediate future. Their development goes hand in hand with the evolution of other technologies such as blockchain, augmented reality, virtual reality and artificial intelligence. This paper aims to map the different possibilities offered by these new realities, starting from the study of new market configurations and pointing out the challenges they offer to current regulation, especially from the perspective of intellectual property and the applicability of rules on digital services.

Some video games feature an in-game currency that can be used to acquire virtual items for use in the game. European regulators have taken an increasing interest in this mechanic, most recently with the publication by the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network of the guidelines ‘Key Principles on In-Game Currencies’.1 In particular, there is a view that when a player exchanges in-game currency for a virtual item, the player should be provided with the real-world value of the in-game currency being used in that exchange. This article considers whether such an obligation exists – and if not, whether such an obligation should be introduced.

Avatars are digital representations of oneself used within virtual environments to portray ourselves in the form of our choice. Avatars have taken many shapes and styles since their first appearance in the digital domain. Because of this, new digital environments, such as Metaverse ones, will require a reinvention of this concept, one where it will gain more importance. The better the avatar, the more immersive and realistic the Metaverse experience. In this context, Meta is currently working on a new form of avatars, hyper-realistic ones, which perfectly mimic a full-body digital image of a person. While the possibilities this kind of avatar might entail for immersion and entertainment are undoubted, the risks the use of these avatars might entail from a privacy and data protection perspective are yet to be seen. Considering the quantity and nature of data collected and processed to create these avatars, they can be considered personal data and, in some cases, even biometric data. Thus, in the European Union, the processing of such personal and biometric data should comply with several restrictive conditions imposed by the General Data Protection Regulation. This paper will discuss the lack of clarity about the legal status of personal data from Metaverse avatars. Further, the contribution will propose using blockchain technology as a privacy-enhancing technology, which might help Metaverse users retain control of their personal data. In this regard, blockchain offers a promising alternative due to its decentralized, immutable and transparent nature maintaining privacy and confidentiality at the same time. Finally, the paper will examine the potential benefits of using blockchain technology to ensure avatar interoperability between virtual worlds in the Metaverse from a legal perspective.

‘On the Internet nobody knows you are a dog’. This was the slogan that characterized users’ use of the internet for years. As a result, each user was (and is) allowed to possess many different digital identities, often unrelated to each other, and bearing no resemblance to the person’s real identity. The start of the Web 4.0 era and the advent of the Metaverse, however, pose many challenges to the protection of individual rights. One of the most important challenges concerns digital identity. While it is important to ensure maximum freedom, users increasingly demand ‘authenticity’. Moreover, this fragmented nature does not allow for adequate identity protection and is an obstacle to interoperability, a much-desired feature of the Metaverse. This article aims to examine the state-of-the-art of the Metaverse, with a focus on issues related to digital identity. After introducing the concept of digital identity, the article analyses the effectiveness of the current European regulatory framework and ends by discussing the possible benefits of a single digital identity.

In a long-awaited decision dated October 23, 2024, rendered in the Valve v. UFC-Que Choisir case, the French Cour de cassation (French Supreme Civil Court) confirmed that the principle of exhaustion of rights, which allows consumers to resell physical copies of video games without the consent of the rights holder, does not apply to dematerialized copies of video games, thereby reinforcing the rights of video games publishers.