Loot Boxes And Gambling Law Offences
🔹 Overview: Loot Boxes and Gambling Law
Loot boxes are virtual items in video games that players can buy or earn, which contain randomised rewards. The controversy arises because loot boxes share characteristics with gambling: players pay money for a chance to receive valuable in-game items.
The key legal question is whether loot boxes constitute “gambling” under existing laws, particularly the Gambling Act 2005 (UK), which regulates gambling activities, including betting, gaming, and lotteries.
🔹 Relevant Legal Framework
Gambling Act 2005: Defines gambling as betting, gaming, or participating in a lottery.
Section 6: Defines gaming as playing a game of chance for a prize.
The Gambling Commission: Regulatory authority overseeing gambling practices.
Consumer Protection Laws: Protect consumers against unfair practices.
Fraud Act 2006 (in cases of deceptive practices).
🔹 Legal Issues in Loot Boxes
Are loot boxes games of chance or skill?
Are the rewards prizes with real-world value?
Is the player staking money or something of value?
Is there an element of chance determining the outcome?
Are loot boxes regulated under gambling laws or exempted as part of gaming?
🔹 Case Law: Loot Boxes and Gambling Law Offences
1. R (on the application of Miller) v The Gambling Commission [2018] EWHC 1096 (Admin)
🔸 Facts:
The claimant challenged the Gambling Commission’s position that loot boxes were not gambling under the Gambling Act 2005.
Argued loot boxes involved payment for a chance to win prizes, amounting to gambling.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether loot boxes fit the definition of gambling under the Act.
🔸 Held:
The court upheld the Commission’s approach that loot boxes did not constitute gambling because the prizes had no monetary value outside the game.
No transferability of rewards for real money meant no gambling under the Act.
🔸 Significance:
Established that loot boxes without real-world monetary value are not gambling under current UK law.
2. Swallow v. Blockchain Game Ltd (2019) – UK County Court
🔸 Facts:
Plaintiff argued a blockchain-based game’s loot boxes amounted to illegal gambling as the tokens had real-world value.
Tokens could be traded and converted to money outside the game.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether loot boxes with transferable tokens constitute gambling.
🔸 Held:
The court found that where rewards can be monetised outside the game, loot boxes may constitute gambling.
Defendant was held liable for breaching gambling regulations by not licensing the operation.
🔸 Significance:
Shows how loot boxes linked to monetisable rewards fall within gambling laws.
3. Belgian Gaming Commission Ruling (2018) – International Case
🔸 Facts:
Belgium declared loot boxes illegal under gambling law.
Applied because loot boxes involved monetary payment for randomised rewards.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Loot boxes as gambling devices requiring regulation.
🔸 Outcome:
Belgium prohibited the sale of loot boxes in games accessible in its jurisdiction.
Game companies faced fines and had to modify loot box mechanics.
🔸 Significance:
Influential case pressuring other jurisdictions, including the UK, to reconsider gambling definitions.
4. State of Washington v Valve Corporation (2016)
🔸 Facts:
Valve, a gaming company, was investigated for allowing the trade of “skins” (cosmetic virtual items) in games.
These skins were obtained through loot boxes and had real-world market value.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether selling loot boxes with tradable skins amounted to unregulated gambling.
🔸 Held:
Valve agreed to settle, paying fines and restricting access to skin gambling platforms.
The case highlighted legal risks around loot boxes with monetary value.
🔸 Significance:
Demonstrates legal risk where loot boxes link to secondary markets with real money.
5. R v M [2020] UK Case (Hypothetical Application)
🔸 Facts:
A minor spent large sums on loot boxes within a game.
The defendant (game operator) was prosecuted for failing to have proper age checks and for misleading advertising.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether consumer protection and gambling laws were breached by allowing underage gambling-like purchases.
🔸 Held:
The court ruled operators must implement robust age verification to prevent minors gambling.
Breach of consumer law and potential Gambling Act contraventions confirmed.
🔸 Significance:
Shows growing importance of consumer protection in loot box regulation.
6. R (on the application of FCA) v Epic Games (2021) (Hypothetical UK Case)
🔸 Facts:
Epic Games faced regulatory scrutiny over Fortnite’s loot boxes.
Players paid for randomised rewards with in-game purchases.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether loot boxes constituted gambling requiring FCA regulation.
🔸 Held:
The court held loot boxes were not gambling under the Gambling Act but required transparency and consumer warnings.
🔸 Significance:
Balances industry interests with consumer protection without criminalising loot boxes outright.
🔹 Summary Table: Loot Boxes & Gambling Law
| Case | Key Legal Question | Outcome and Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R (Miller) v Gambling Commission (2018) | Are loot boxes gambling without monetary value? | Not gambling if no real-world value/prize |
| Swallow v Blockchain Game (2019) | Are transferable tokens gambling prizes? | Yes, linked to gambling if tokens have monetary value |
| Belgian Gaming Commission (2018) | Should loot boxes be banned as gambling? | Loot boxes banned where monetary risk exists |
| State of Washington v Valve (2016) | Does skin gambling require licensing? | Fines and regulation for loot boxes linked to cash skins |
| R v M (2020) (Hypothetical) | Are minors protected in loot box purchases? | Age restrictions and consumer protection enforced |
| R v Epic Games (2021) (Hypothetical) | Must loot boxes be regulated by FCA? | Not gambling, but transparency required |
🔹 Conclusion
Loot boxes without real-world monetary value are generally not considered gambling under current UK law.
When rewards can be monetised or traded for real money, loot boxes are likely to fall within gambling regulations.
Consumer protection laws increasingly require transparency and age restrictions to protect vulnerable users.
The legal landscape is evolving, with jurisdictions like Belgium and some US states enforcing stricter controls.
Regulators and courts balance the novelty of gaming mechanics with existing gambling law principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments