Author
Abstract
Background and aims: Physical card packs are gambling-like products offering consumers random prizes. Most contain cards of little value worth less than the purchase price of the pack itself, but a few contain rare and highly valuable cards. Previous research has found a weak positive association between physical card pack spending and problem gambling, suggesting that vulnerable consumers may experience financial harm and that these physical gambling-like products may pose addiction-like risks. Unlike traditional gambling, card packs are not an adult-only product and are widely purchased by children too. Worldwide, there is currently no dedicated card pack regulation. Notwithstanding, basic consumer law applies, requiring companies to disclose and not hide important information about the product: specifically, the odds of obtaining different prizes. Methods: We sampled 50 card packs in Hong Kong representing popular products consumers buy to assess whether they disclosed winning probabilities. Results: The vast majority (80.0%) failed to provide any such information or relevant hyperlinks on their physical packaging. The other 20.0% that provided probability disclosures failed to give sufficient details and were, occasionally, difficult to find and misleading. No pack (0.0%) allowed the consumer to know their odds of getting every individual card. Discussion and conclusions: In the absence of gambling law and dedicated regulations, consumer law should be better enforced against gambling-like products (including physical Pokémon card packs, Labubu blind boxes, and video game loot boxes) to mandate transparency and enable consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. The potential harms posed by novel gambling-like products should be further studied and properly regulated.
Suggested Citation
Xiao, Leon Y. & Lo, Ching Yiu & Xiaoyu, Xiong, 2026.
"Most physical trading and collectible card packs do not disclose probabilities for winning rare prizes,"
LawArchive
ndq4a_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:lawarc:ndq4a_v1
DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ndq4a_v1
Download full text from publisher
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:osf:lawarc:ndq4a_v1. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.