IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v45y2022i3d10.1007_s10603-022-09522-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Author

Listed:
  • D. Leahy

    (School of Law, University College Cork)

Abstract

The loot box, a feature of online video games, contains randomised virtual items of importance to gameplay. Comparisons are drawn between chance-based loot boxes and the legal and psychological definitions of gambling, leading to concerns that the format may be an unregulated form of quasi-gambling. Globally, several jurisdictions have intervened to control the loot box, some applying national gambling laws, while others have implemented more general rules, an alternative described as “consumer protection”. In 2020, a study commissioned on behalf of the EU Parliament recommended that loot boxes and in-game purchasing systems be regulated from a “consumer protection” perspective. This paper questions firstly whether the debate on product-specific rules for loot box games was conducted in reverse, commencing with a set of potential solutions, while research on harms is still at an early stage. It interrogates the “consumer protection” route, critiquing proposals that borrow from the conceptually and structurally distinct areas of gambling law and consumer protection law, without first resolving the tensions between them. The paper proposes that an alternative paradigm of “player protection” may be the better route towards solving the regulatory puzzle of loot boxes. The paper secondly argues for the EU and its Member States to adopt an interim approach, relying on existing legislation to tackle immediate concerns and facilitate testing of remedial measures, but which leaves the door ajar to alternative options, including regulation under national gambling law frameworks. It examines the UCPD as an immediate solution and considers how the updated UCPD Guidance addresses questions of potentially exploitative game design.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:45:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-022-09522-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-022-09522-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-022-09522-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-022-09522-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCaffrey, Matthew, 2019. "The macro problem of microtransactions: The self-regulatory challenges of video game loot boxes," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 483-495.
    2. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Marijn Sax & Natali Helberger & Nadine Bol, 2018. "Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 103-134, June.
    4. Alberto Alemanno & Simon Planzer, 2010. "Lifestyle Risks: Conceptualizing an Emerging Category of Research," Post-Print hal-00635543, HAL.
    5. Paul Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2020. "Gaming-gambling convergence: evaluating evidence for the ‘gateway’ hypothesis," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 380-392, September.
    6. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer, 2018. "Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 530-532, August.
    7. Shaun Stephen Garea & Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & Matthew Neil Williams, 2021. "Meta-analysis of the relationship between problem gambling, excessive gaming and loot box spending," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 460-479, September.
    8. Elena Petrovskaya & David Zendle, 2022. "Predatory Monetisation? A Categorisation of Unfair, Misleading and Aggressive Monetisation Techniques in Digital Games from the Player Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1065-1081, December.
    9. Sharon Lawn & Candice Oster & Ben Riley & David Smith & Michael Baigent & Mubarak Rahamathulla, 2020. "A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiao, Leon Y., 2024. "Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories," OSF Preprints s92j3, Center for Open Science.
    2. Mattinen, Topias & Macey, Joseph & Hamari, Juho, 2023. "A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena," OSF Preprints s9xqt, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiao, Leon Y., 2020. "Regulating Loot Boxes as Gambling? Perspectives from Psychology, Behavioural Economics and Ludology," LawArXiv cdr69, Center for Open Science.
    2. Xiao, Leon Y., 2024. "Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories," OSF Preprints s92j3, Center for Open Science.
    3. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Mattinen, Topias & Macey, Joseph & Hamari, Juho, 2023. "A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena," OSF Preprints s9xqt, Center for Open Science.
    5. Anthony King & Gloria Wong-Padoongpatt, 2022. "Do Gamers Play for Money? A Moderated Mediation of Gaming Motives, Relative Deprivation, and Upward Mobility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-21, November.
    6. McCaffrey, Matthew, 2019. "The macro problem of microtransactions: The self-regulatory challenges of video game loot boxes," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 483-495.
    7. Bach Q. Ho & Mai Otsuki & Yusuke Kishita & Maiko Kobayakawa & Kentaro Watanabe, 2022. "Human Augmentation Technologies for Employee Well-Being: A Research and Development Agenda," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Ningyuan Chen & Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton & Xiao Lei, 2021. "Loot Box Pricing and Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4809-4825, August.
    9. Sharon Lawn & Candice Oster & Ben Riley & David Smith & Michael Baigent & Mubarak Rahamathulla, 2020. "A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Love Kumar & Farah Nadeem & Maggie Sloan & Jonas Restle-Steinert & Matthew J. Deitch & Sohail Ali Naqvi & Avinash Kumar & Claudio Sassanelli, 2022. "Fostering Green Finance for Sustainable Development: A Focus on Textile and Leather Small Medium Enterprises in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, September.
    11. Ben J. Riley & Candice Oster & Mubarak Rahamathulla & Sharon Lawn, 2021. "Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Phoenix K. H. Mo & Juliet Honglei Chen & Joseph T. F. Lau & Anise M. S. Wu, 2020. "Internet-Related Addictions: From Measurements to Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-4, April.
    13. Sarah E Hodge & Max Vykoukal & John McAlaney & Reece D Bush-Evans & Ruijie Wang & Raian Ali, 2022. "What’s in the box? Exploring UK players’ experiences of loot boxes in games; the conceptualisation and parallels with gambling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Elena Petrovskaya & David Zendle, 2022. "Predatory Monetisation? A Categorisation of Unfair, Misleading and Aggressive Monetisation Techniques in Digital Games from the Player Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1065-1081, December.
    15. R. Hyde & P. Cartwright, 2023. "Exploring Consumer Detriment in Immersive Gaming Technologies," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 335-361, September.
    16. Xiao, Leon Y. & Henderson, Laura L., 2019. "Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro," LawArXiv r6z5a, Center for Open Science.
    17. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Jean-Michel Costes & Céline Bonnaire, 2022. "Spending Money in Free-to-Play Games: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Motives, Impulsivity and Internet Gaming Disorder Specificities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Suzanne Lischer & Emilien Jeannot & Lukas Brülisauer & Niels Weber & Yasser Khazaal & Samuel Bendahan & Olivier Simon, 2022. "Response to the Regulation of Video Games under the Youth Media Protection Act: A Public Health Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-11, July.
    20. Rimal, Retina & Shepherd, Robin-Marie & Curley, Louise Elizabeth & Sundram, Frederick, 2023. "Perspectives from gambling expert stakeholders in relation to electronic gaming machines in New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:45:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-022-09522-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.