consumer rightsNew Worldlegal

When Purchases Vanish: What New World’s Delisting Teaches About Consumer Rights

oonlinegaming

2026-01-27

10 min read

New World’s delisting — and Marks of Fortune removal — exposes gaps in refund rights and disclosure for digital purchases. Here's what players can do now.

When Purchases Vanish: What New World’s Delisting Teaches About Consumer Rights

Hook: If you’ve ever bought in-game currency, DLC or a full game only to wake up one morning and find the storefront listing gone — or the currency you paid for unsellable — you’re not alone. Amazon’s recent decision to delist New World and stop sales of its in-game currency, Marks of Fortune, has reopened urgent questions about refunds, disclosure and the legal status of digital purchases.

Quick take: What happened with New World and why it matters

On a July 2026 update, Amazon announced New World will be delisted (no longer for sale) and its servers scheduled to shut down January 31, 2027. Purchases of Marks of Fortune will be disabled from July 20, 2026, and Amazon explicitly stated it will not offer refunds for Marks of Fortune purchases. Players who already own the game can re-download and play until shutdown, but the effective removal of purchasable currency reduces the utility of earlier microtransactions.

“We want to thank the players for your dedication and passion… While we are saddened to say goodbye, we’re honored that we were able to share so much with the community.” — New World statement

That messaging is familiar — an emotional farewell, a clear delist date and a timeline for shutdown — but it left fans asking concrete legal questions: Do players have a right to a refund for virtual currency they bought and never used? Does delisting amount to a breach of contract? And what must publishers disclose when they plan a sunset?

Why delisting and currency removal are more than inconvenience

For gamers, delisting and in-game currency removal create three concrete consumer harms:

Loss of expected value. Currency and items purchased with real money typically lose utility when services stop supporting them.
Lack of notice and transparency. Many players discover shutdowns only after purchases are restricted.
Limited remedies. Digital goods often fall into a legal grey area — tokens may be treated as licensed rather than owned property, limiting legal recourse.

How law currently treats digital purchases — a practical primer

There’s no global uniform treatment for digital purchases. Two concepts dominate outcomes in disputes: whether a consumer bought a product (ownership) or was granted a license to use a service (license).

EU consumers (stronger statutory protections)

European frameworks — including the EU Digital Content Directive and national consumer laws implementing it — generally give buyers stronger statutory rights around conformity and remedies. If a digital service materially changes or is withdrawn without adequate disclosure, EU consumers are more likely to have enforceable remedies such as repair, replacement or refund. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and increased enforcement across 2024–2026 have also put platform practices under closer scrutiny, which strengthens the regulatory backdrop for consumer complaints.

United States consumers (fragmented, contract-driven)

In the U.S., outcomes often hinge on contract law and the text of terms of service (ToS). Courts have frequently treated digital purchases as licenses, not property — meaning the publisher’s ToS may permit the company to change or discontinue services. That said, state consumer protection laws, chargeback mechanisms and class actions remain viable tools. Regulatory interest at both state and federal levels increased through 2025–2026, as investigators scrutinized monetization practices and disclosures.

Other regions

Regulators worldwide — from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority to Italy’s AGCM (which launched probes into in-game monetization practices in early 2026) — are focusing on misleading interfaces, currency bundles and poor disclosure. Those probes signal a policy direction: regulators expect clearer pricing, better defaults for parental controls, and transparent refund practices. For industry best practices on monetization strategies and how teams run live economies, see microdrops & live‑ops playbooks.

Precedent cases: what other shutdowns teach us

Comparing New World to earlier shutdowns highlights policy choices that either protected or left players exposed.

Epic’s Paragon (2018)

When Epic shut down its MOBA Paragon, the company announced refunds for recent purchases and released the game’s assets to the community. That approach reduced consumer backlash and created goodwill — a model of partial restitution and community benefit.

Disney Infinity (2016)

Disney closed Disney Infinity — a platform mixing physical toys with online content — and discontinued online services for later console generations. Consumers received limited refunds for unused online features, but the mixed physical/digital nature complicated remedies. The lesson: hybrid models add legal complexity and require clear post-shutdown pathways.

Various mobile game shutdowns

Mobile publishers frequently close titles with cheap or no refunds, prompting regulatory action in several jurisdictions. The Italian AGCM’s 2026 probes into Activision Blizzard, for instance, focus on practices that obscure the real value of virtual currency and deploy aggressive UX to drive purchases — trends regulators now view as problematic.

Why New World’s Marks of Fortune policy matters legally and practically

Amazon’s public stance — delist now, disable currency sales in July 2026, no refunds for Marks of Fortune — crystallizes a common corporate approach: preserve playtime for existing owners while ending monetization streams. Practically, that reduces ongoing revenue but also preserves server usage and community activity until shutdown. Legally, it raises three issues:

Disclosure adequacy: Did Amazon give reasonable notice and clear terms when selling Marks of Fortune (e.g., “non-refundable on sunset” language)?
Unconscionability and fairness: If players bought currency hours before the shutdown announcement, were those sales unfair or misleading?
Jurisdictional variance: Consumers in the EU may have stronger claims than those under U.S. state contract law.

Practical steps players should take right now

If you’ve purchased New World, Marks of Fortune, or any in-game currency tied to a title that’s been delisted or scheduled for shutdown, follow this step-by-step checklist to protect your options.

Document everything. Save receipts, screenshots of store pages and timestamps of announcements. If you bought Marks of Fortune recently, capture the transaction record and the in-game balance screenshot.
Check the ToS and purchase terms. Look for explicit sunset clauses, refund exclusions and the region-specific consumer rights clause. Note: broad “we may change this service” clauses are common, but they are not always enforceable in all jurisdictions.
Request a refund directly. Contact Amazon support (or the platform where you bought the currency). Make a concise written request citing purchase date and amount, and ask for reimbursement or compensation (store credit, gift, etc.).
Use payment disputes as a backup. Where a direct refund is denied, consider contacting your credit card company or payment provider for a chargeback — particularly if you bought currency right before a delist announcement and the sale appears misleading.
File regulatory complaints. For EU users, file with your national consumer authority or European Consumer Centre. In Italy, for example, the AGCM is actively investigating aggressive monetization practices. For U.S. users, file with state consumer protection offices or the FTC if widespread deceptive practices are suspected.
Join or monitor class actions and community campaigns. Consolidated legal action increases leverage and can lead to negotiated remedies. Community-led transparency campaigns can pressure publishers to offer compensation.
Plan for your data and in-game assets. Back up screenshots and account details. Some closures preserve account access but not features — documentation helps if you claim lost value later.

What platforms and regulators should require — policy recommendations

New World’s delisting highlights gaps that policy can fix. Here are practical, regulator-friendly solutions that balance business realities with consumer protection.

Mandatory sunset disclosures. Storefronts and publishers should be required to publish a clear “sunset policy” on all product pages indicating under what conditions content will be discontinued and whether in-game currency is refundable.
Minimum notice periods. Require vendors to give at least 90–180 days’ notice before disabling purchases of currency or taking a game offline for consumer purchases made within a window tied to the product lifecycle.
Pro-rata compensation for unused currency. On shutdown, require firms to offer a pro-rata refund or transfer to another service for unused currency above a de minimis threshold.
Standardized labeling for virtual currency value. Make it simple to see real-world cost equivalents for currency bundles to reduce confusion and protect consumers (particularly minors).
Escrow or trust for large-value purchases. For games that monetize heavily through virtual currency, require escrow arrangements for unspent balances if a game is discontinued. See how tokenized commerce approaches are already reshaping how value is represented and protected.

Industry best practices worth copying now

Some publishers have taken steps that reduce harm and preserve goodwill. The following are effective and practical:

Time-limited refunds or credits when announcing closure. Offer refunds for currency purchased in the recent period before a delist/closure announcement.
Conversion offers. Allow players to convert currency into cosmetic items or transfer value to another live title — a tactic common in live‑ops and microdrop strategies.
Community engagement and clear timelines. Continuous communication and an FAQ dedicated to refunds, data export and timelines reduce misinformation and litigation risk. Platforms that foster community hubs (see community hub playbooks) can surface problems earlier.

Regulatory momentum in 2026: what to expect

2024–2026 saw an acceleration of regulatory focus on digital monetization. Key trends to watch:

Greater scrutiny of UX-driven monetization. Authorities like Italy’s AGCM are investigating deceptive UI tactics and opaque currency bundles that obscure real costs.
Cross-border coordination. Consumer agencies are more likely to collaborate on cases involving global publishers, raising the stakes for companies operating internationally.
Platform accountability. Digital marketplaces are under pressure to enforce clearer pre-sale disclosures and support post-sale remedies. Platform engineering teams should consider graceful shutdown playbooks and release practices; see guidance on zero‑downtime release pipelines for operational readiness when planning a sunset.

Long-term predictions: what the next five years may bring

Looking ahead from 2026, several likely developments will reshape how delisting and in-game currency removal are handled:

Standardized industry sunset policies. Expect industry associations or regulators to publish standard templates for shutdown disclosures and compensation frameworks.
Insurance or escrow for large-scale virtual economies. Publishers with substantial live-economy games may adopt escrow-like protections for player balances to maintain trust.
Technological transparency tools. Third-party services may emerge to track real-world equivalents of virtual currency across games, improving consumer comparison shopping.
Legal reclassification pressure. Lawmakers may push to treat certain high-value virtual assets as property rather than mere licensed content, enabling property-style remedies in courts.

What gamers, consumer advocates and journalists should watch

If you follow closures and delistings, monitor these signals:

Timing of delist announcements vs. closure dates (short notice = red flag).
Whether in-game currency remains purchasable up to closure and whether refunds are offered.
Changes to ToS and localized consumer notices (are they buried or prominent?).
Regulatory filings and local consumer authority investigations (e.g., AGCM probes in 2026).

Final actionable takeaways

New World’s delist reveals how fragile the economic value of digital purchases can be. Here’s what to do if you’re a player, and what to demand as a consumer:

Players: Document purchases, request refunds quickly, use payment chargebacks where appropriate, and join community/legal actions to amplify leverage.
Consumer advocates: Push for mandatory sunset disclosures, quicker complaint channels and standardized refund frameworks for digital economies.
Publishers & stores: Adopt transparent notices, offer pro-rata refunds or conversion options for unused currency, and publish clear sunset policies to reduce reputational risk.

Conclusion — the bottom line for consumer rights in gaming

The New World delist is not an isolated PR moment — it’s a case study. It exposes a systemic mismatch between how digital goods are sold and how consumer protections were designed. As regulators in 2026 tighten oversight, and as players grow savvier, the market will reward publishers who treat virtual purchases with the same clarity and remedies we expect from physical goods. For now, players must be proactive: document, demand, dispute, and, where necessary, litigate or lobby for change.

Call to action: If you’ve been affected by New World’s delisting or a similar shutdown, start by documenting your transactions and filing a formal refund request today. Share your story with consumer groups and follow updates from local regulators — collective pressure is the most effective path to stronger, enforceable rights for digital purchases.

onlinegaming

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.