New research: spending money on physical #CardPacks is also linked to problem gambling. 🎰 We answer an FAQ: enough about video game #LootBoxes; what about Pokémon / Magic: The Gathering cards? 🃏💳
We surveyed ≈2,000 card game players in English-speaking Western countries: https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0001082.
1️⃣: Spending money on physical gambling-like products like card packs is also linked to problem gambling.
2️⃣: Spending on digital card packs (i.e., a type of loot boxes in card-based video games like Hearthstone and Magic: The Gathering Arena) is similarly linked to problem gambling.
3️⃣: But, video game loot box spending is more strongly correlated to problem gambling than any other product.
4️⃣: Purchasing any of these products was NOT associated with poor mental health.
Both physical and digital gambling-like products are linked to problem gambling. This raises two problems with current gambling law.
First, lack of enforcement: existing law is not strictly enforced against physical gambling-like products like card packs and blind boxes containing Labubus, which constitute unlicensed illegal gambling in most countries because their content can be, and often are, sold in exchange for real money on the secondary market. This is increasingly important because card packs no longer cost just a few bucks, but could now cost upwards of US$100 each for just a dozen cards, as they contain lottery-level chase cards worth up to US$2 million on the secondary market.
Policymakers might justifiably decide not to ban card packs or blind boxes (e.g., they are not sufficiently harmful as to justify strict regulation). However, that position (which has seemingly been adopted across the world) must be reasoned and explained to the public. Any current gambling laws that are in conflict with that position must be amended. Unenforced laws are contrary to the rule of law.
Second, lack of regulation: loot boxes, the gambling-like product mostly strongly linked to problem gambling, remain largely unregulated in most countries. Legal definitions of gambling should be updated to reflect scientific evidence on the potential harms of novel gambling-like products. Physical card packs being treated, at least on paper (although not in practice due to unenforcement), as more like “illegal gambling” than loot boxes is unjustifiable. The more harmful product should be subject to stricter regulation. Digital harms should be duly recognised.
Gambling-like products generate billions of dollars each year worldwide, but are not regulated as gambling and are purchased by children and adults alike. We cannot permit them to fly under the radar anymore!
Co-authors: David Zendle, Elena Petrovskaya, Rune Kristian Lundedal Nielsen, & Philip Newall
Funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG)
Published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors by the American Psychological Association (APA): https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0001082
Since 2020, the Dutch 🇳🇱 consumer regulator, The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), has published guidelines (https://lnkd.in/eyPGAaqj) as to how video game companies should comply with (the ACM’s interpretation of) EU 🇪🇺 consumer law. The advice covers in-game purchases and #LootBoxes.
In 2021, the European Commission published a document advising, inter alia, on (in its opinion) the proper interpretation of EU consumer law in the video game context (https://lnkd.in/ePdFUbhA), which supplements the Dutch ACM guidelines.
I assessed compliance with EU consumer law as interpreted amongst the 50 highest-grossing iPhone games in the Netherlands in 2024. Read now in Intl J L & Info Tech: https://lnkd.in/ecssCeQy.
1️⃣: Only 2% displayed the price of all in-game purchases observed in euros (and that single compliant game was the mobile version of Chess.com, which did not implement virtual currencies).
2️⃣: Just 34.9% of games with loot boxes disclosed probabilities (VERY poor performance compared to the UK and Asia!), and only 9.3% disclosed the exact probabilities for getting each individual item that could potentially be obtained as required. 😔
3️⃣: On the Apple App Store listings, the presence of in-game purchases was duly disclosed by all 50 games. However, the presence of loot boxes specifically was disclosed by only 4.7% of games with loot boxes. 😫
4️⃣: The webpage version of the Apple App Store listings of all games advertised them as ‘Gratis [Free],’ which is prohibited (cf. ‘Download’ and ‘Get,’ which are used elsewhere and permissible). 🤦♂️ The descriptive text of many listings also inappropriately used the word ‘Gratis [Free]’ or ‘Free’ to advertise the game.
5️⃣: 90% of games were identified as containing direct exhortations to children to make purchases. 👶🏻🤑
Compliance with most measures was therefore very poor and, with some measures, almost non-existent. 🙃
These and other children-related advertising concerns formed a test complaint against MY.GAMES before the Dutch advertising self-regulator, the Stichting Reclame Code: https://lnkd.in/eQ_Rgy_V. The European Commission’s and the ACM’s interpretations were upheld, including the euro-pricing requirement.
Notably, Paul Gardner and others have argued that the strict requirement that all in-game purchase prices must be stated in euros might not be the wholly correct legal interpretation: https://lnkd.in/eHsxPcsi.
It is quite telling how the ACM did not pursue this obvious point in its enforcement action against Fortnite for consumer law breaches (https://lnkd.in/eHyaUi4c). Various reasons likely contributed to not taking that particular point. However, it shows weakness when the regulator does not consistently enforce its own published interpretation of the law.
A Freedom of Information request to the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has revealed that (i) DCMS is still evaluating the implementation of the #LootBox industry self-regulation published by Ukie; (ii) Ministers have yet to make a decision as to future regulation; and (iii) accordingly, DCMS chose to evade answering the question of whether self-regulation has failed when responding to media inquiries concerning our now peer-reviewed and published research (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250704).
We await that answer in due course. The PUBLIC research report commissioned by DCMS intended to inform policymaking was due in April 2025. Ministers should make a decision without undue delay.
(I am only sharing the final version approved by the special advisor (Spad) in the form it was disclosed to me and not any previous discussions that led to it, except to say that a senior civil servant commented that the DCMS statement should place the onus on the industry.)
1️⃣: “Ministers are yet to take decisions on loot boxes. DCMS has commissioned research on the effectiveness of the industry-led guidance, due to report in April 2025, which will inform recommendations to Ministers for a decision on next steps.”
2️⃣: “Due to the fact that we are still assessing the effectiveness of Ukie's guidance so that advice can be put to ministers, we recommend keeping our response high level at this point - with a broad statement on the importance of video game safety and some factual, explanatory background - rather than engaging with the question of whether 'self-regulation' has failed.”
Credit where credit is due. The INFORMAL resolution of a complaint against Argos before the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) through the provision of compliance advice (without a formal investigation and ruling process) led to tangible improvements. The video game brochure now discloses the presence of in-game purchases generally and loot boxes specifically as required. Well done to the ASA!
I often diss the ASA for failing to formally investigate and rule against widespread non-compliance with advertising rules in the video game context. Informal resolution through which the advertiser is merely told how to comply in the future has generally failed to change corporate behaviour: e.g., Supercell continues to not disclose loot box presence or only illegally discloses with very tiny text, despite multiple complaints that were informally resolved.
Even formal complaint rulings have failed to ensure consistent future compliance: e.g., Miniclip was previously censured (https://lnkd.in/eZm9VisB) but continues to publish a mix of ads that disclose (arguably without sufficient visual prominence) and ones that do not disclose at all.
I have therefore always been sceptical about informal resolutions and have called for stricter, formal enforcement. Notwithstanding, I am pleased to report a successful case of informal resolution.
I complained about the Spring/Summer 2024 issue of the Argos Gamer brochure a year ago for failing to disclose in-game purchases and loot boxes. The ASA informally resolved that complaint by providing guidance to Argos. I was disappointed to find that the next Autumn/Winter 2024 issue had remained non-compliant; however, the ASA advice was likely given after that second issue was already in production.
The newest Spring/Summer 2025 issue now discloses on every relevant page.
“† Indicates game offers optional, additional in game purchases for real money outside of what you can earn through playing. This includes virtual currency and consumables (energy, experience, cosmetics etc). This may also include random item purchases where a customer does not know exactly what they are getting.”
I like how the advisory text clearly explains what might be purchasable and what randomised in-game purchases entail, in contrast to the ambiguous Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI SA “In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)” label. Consumers who are not very familiar with video games (e.g., grandparents) might appreciate this knowledge.
Unfortunately, some dagger symbols (†) were barely perceptible due to low-quality printing and paper and colour contrast issues; I struggled to find some even when I was specifically looking for them! This should be improved in the future with more visually prominent disclosures.
One page of the brochure literally says every game on that page includes in-game purchases, demonstrating their prevalence in contemporary games.