Video Game Age Rating, Age Assurance, and Identity Verification Policy Implementation in Mainland China: Content Analysis of Popular iPhone Games

Background: Playing video games is a popular activity globally across age groups. Concerns have been raised about potentially problematic engagement both in terms of spending too much time (‘gaming disorder’ as defined by the World Health Organization) and money, including on gambling-like in-game purchases, such as loot boxes. Giving games different advisory age ratings based on their potentially problematic content and advising consumers and parents as to what age group the game is suitable for is a non-restrictive policy approach that is widely adopted internationally. In contrast, aiming to address ‘internet addiction’ and ‘excessive monetary spending,’ East Asian countries have adopted (and in the South Korean case since repealed) stricter legal restrictions on how long and when young people can play video games for and how much money they are permitted to spend. These restrictions are enforced by software means through age assurance and identity verification procedures. A prominent example is how Mainland China restricts under-18s from playing online games except for one hour only between 8–9 PM on Fridays, weekends, and public holidays. Different monetary spending limits are also imposed against children based on age groups. Previous research presented conflicting evidence as to whether restrictions on gameplay time were beneficial, suggesting some young people circumvent the restrictions. Objective: Policy implementation evidence can inform both future domestic and international policymaking (including repealing ineffective policies). Whether and how major technology companies implement age ratings, age assurance, and identity verification procedures to enforce video game-related regulatory restrictions in Mainland China were novelly assessed. Methods: The 100 highest-grossing Mainland Chinese iPhone games on 5 January 2024 per data.ai formed the sample. For each game, any age rating-related information was recorded, and the presence of any identity verification procedure was determined through content analysis of the account creation process. Results: Confusingly, two age rating systems often providing conflicting information were presented simultaneously to Mainland Chinese consumers. As required, 95.0% of games conducted identity verification. However, 5.0% of games were accessible without the user having been required to complete identity verification processes, in breach of regulations. Conclusions: The implementation of a single, unified, and culturally appropriate age rating system that includes an adult-only rating would ensure better child protection. The currently widely adopted identity verification process has many flaws, including being easily circumventable. Actionable improvements, such as transmitting sensitive personal data only to a third-party identity verification provider rather than many individual video game companies, are recommended. The age assurance-related policy implementation insights from the Mainland Chinese video game restriction context are also relevant to technology regulation globally: many other countries are depending on such software solutions to address online harms young people might encounter, ranging from pornography to online gambling.