IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/s92j3.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao, Leon Y.

    (IT University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

Loot boxes are gambling-like products inside video games that can be bought with real-world money to obtain random rewards. They are widely available to children, and stakeholders are concerned about potential harms, e.g., overspending. UK advertising must disclose, if relevant, that a game contains (i) any in-game purchases and (ii) loot boxes specifically. An empirical examination of relevant adverts on Meta-owned platforms (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger) and TikTok revealed that only about 7% disclosed loot box presence. The vast majority of social media advertising (93%) was therefore non-compliant with UK advertising regulations and also EU consumer protection law. In the UK alone, the 93 most viewed TikTok adverts failing to disclose loot box presence were watched 292,641,000 times total or approximately 10 impressions per active user. Many people have therefore been repeatedly exposed to prohibited and socially irresponsible advertising that failed to provide important and mandated information. Implementation deficiencies with ad repositories, which must comply with transparency obligations imposed by the EU Digital Services Act, are also highlighted, e.g., not disclosing the beneficiary. How data access empowered by law can and should be used by researchers is practically demonstrated. Policymakers should consider enabling more such opportunities for the public benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:s92j3
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/s92j3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/659410077094e96c27a1747e/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/s92j3?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Leerssen, Paddy & Ausloos, Jef & Zarouali, Brahim & Helberger, Natali & de Vreese, Claes H., 2019. "Platform ad archives: promises and pitfalls," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Xiao, Leon Y., 2020. "Regulating Loot Boxes as Gambling? Perspectives from Psychology, Behavioural Economics and Ludology," LawArXiv cdr69, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jacobs, Mattis & Kurtz, Christian & Simon, Judith & Böhmann, Tilo, 2021. "Value Sensitive Design and power in socio-technical ecosystems," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Nenadić, Iva, 2019. "Unpacking the "European approach" to tackling challenges of disinformation and political manipulation," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Dobber, Tom & Ó Fathaigh, Ronan & Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J., 2019. "The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119, June.
    17. Paul Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2021. "Contentious Issues and Future Directions in Adolescent Gambling Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osfxxx:s92j3. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.