Pair of Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against Google and Apple Over Loot Boxes

June 12, 2020, for Google (Coffee et al. V. Google LLC, 5: 20-CV-03901) and Apple (Taylor et al. V. Inc., 5: 20-CV-03906) Two group litigation was filed in the northern California states, assuming that each app store has a game that includes a wire box mechanism.

LOOT BOXES

A loot box is an i n-game mechanism in which players can open virtual containers and receive random items. Players can buy a loot box in i n-game currency or real world currency. Some of the loot boxes can receive additional loot boxes for players. Star Wars Battlefront 2 "(It's not a pure optional item, but a game that has been the controversy by trapping the necessary game content behind the loot box) Examples are shown below:

THE COMPLAINTS

Both complaints are substantially similar, so I will explain them together. Both complaints begin dramatically from the following words of Tim Sweeney, a c o-founder of Epic Games:

"You should be cautious about creating an experience that will affect the results by using money. The loot box can ultimately get a lot of money, and gambling. I use all the mechanisms, "Do you want to be like a slot machine like a slot machine, or be widely respected by customers?" Some companies are profitable by giving. "

Illegal and unfair commercial actions that violate the California State Fraud Competition Prevention Law ("UCL")
Fronep, deceptive acts and comparatives that violate the Consumer Legal Relief Law, and
Unfair gain

ISSUES

In this lawsuit, many interesting issues and issues that need to be dealt with or overcome to win. I will follow the whereabouts of the trial to what kind of development will be, but let me give you some of the many issues:

Is the loot box gambling in California?

In general, in most gambling methods, it is necessary to meet three elements in order for a certain act to be regarded as gambling:

Paid (bet)
By coincidence (how much coincidence is necessary depends on the jurisdiction area), and
Prize money.

The plaintiff quotes Article 330 (D) of the California Penal Code, arguing that a game containing a loot is an illegal "slot machine or device" under the California Law. The wording in light of the general elements of the California Law is as follows:

Price-"Introducing money, coins, other objects, or other means";
Coincidence- "Because of dangerous or accidental elements, or other results of unpredictable operations";
Awards- "Money, credit, allowance, or worthless, or additional opportunities and rights to use slot machines and equipment, or whether or not it is worthless regardless of whether it is worth or not in a small stamp, slag, token, or memorandum. What can be exchanged for credit, allowance, or worth.

In another part of this law, "valuable things" are defined as "money, coin, currency, check, chip, allowance, token, credit, product, or valuable representative." Masu. This seems to be excluded for virtual items that cannot be exchanged for currency. However, in addition to "valuable things", "additional opportunities or rights to use devices" are also included in the prize elements. Not all, the loot box has a prize that offers more wire box play. The plaintiff seems to have both types in the same category, but it may be important for California's gambling analysis to provide additional game play.

Can Google and Apple be responsible for the i n-game games sold on their platform?

Google and Apple are likely to claim that complaints about the structure of a specific game should be in the game publisher. For example, Google's Terms of Service includes the following:

Users are GPC, Google, Other GP C-related companies, and those agents, contractors, officers, employees, or all the claims, requests, and damages related to dispute or in a dispute. We agree to be exempted from (actually and as a result). Users agree that GPCs do not involve GPCs related to the Service, other buyers, advertisers, and other third parties, causes or related litigation or relevant litigation in the agreement. I will do it. In addition, the jurisdiction of the lawsuit or dispute (II) shall be limited to the following stipulated. Awards- "Money, credit, allowance, or valuable or slot machines, or additional rights, small stamps, slags, tokens, or memorandums, whether or not they are worthless , Money, Credit, allowance, or worthless.

SIDE NOTE

Shopping Around for Loot Box Presence Warning Labels: Unsatisfactory Compliance on Epic, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft Platforms

Can Google and Apple be responsible for the i n-game games sold on their platform?

Google and Apple are likely to claim that complaints about the structure of a specific game should be in the game publisher. For example, Google's Terms of Service includes the following:

New Citation Alert!

Users are GPC, Google, Other GP C-related companies, and those agents, contractors, officers, employees, or all the claims, requests, and damages related to dispute or in a dispute. We agree to be exempted from (actually and as a result). Users agree that GPCs do not involve GPCs related to the Service, other buyers, advertisers, and other third parties, causes or related litigation or relevant litigation in the agreement. I will do it. In addition, the jurisdiction of the lawsuit or dispute (II) shall be limited to the following stipulated. Awards- "Money, credit, allowance, or worthless, or additional opportunities and rights to use slot machines and equipment, or whether or not it is worthless regardless of whether it is worth or not in a small stamp, slag, token, or memorandum. What can be exchanged for credit, allowance, or worth.

Can Google and Apple be responsible for the i n-game games sold on their platform?
Google and Apple are likely to claim that complaints about the structure of a specific game should be in the game publisher. For example, Google's Terms of Service includes the following:
Users are GPC, Google, Other GP C-related companies, and those agents, contractors, officers, employees, or all the claims, requests, and damages related to dispute or in a dispute. We agree to be exempted from (actually and as a result). Users agree that GPCs are not involved in dealers, other buyers, advertisers, and other third parties related to this service, due to agreements, agreements, or associated litigation in arrangements. I will do it. In addition, the jurisdiction of the lawsuit or dispute (II) shall be limited to the following stipulated.
The plaintiff says, "The platform is implicitly acknowledged that the wire box in the store game is a form of gambling. Like a lottery in California, the Platform is for developers. We are urging to disclose the "winning probability" of a specific item included in the wire box of the game to be distributed. This is a little careless. Some of the countries where Google and Apple operate their businesses do not regard a loot box as gambling, but also requires such information disclosure (China and South Korea). Furthermore, in response to recent criticisms, many game companies have voluntarily agreed to disclose the probability of a loot box. The platform demands the odds of the loot box in the game publisher is to secure global compliance and provide transparency for this compassion, and to promote illegality. I am not tolerated.
This alert has been added normally: If the record you selected is quoted, you will be notified at any time.
To manage the alert setting, click the button below. Alert management
Please log in to the account.

Abstract

Content

1 Introduction

Information & contributor

Vibrio Metrics and Quote

Optional display

1.1 Video Game Monetization: The Rise of Microtransactions

References

1.2 Aspects of Microtransactions as Dark Patterns

media

table

1.3 Potential Harms of Loot Boxes

The platform

Loot boxes are gambling-like products in video games that players can purchase with real-world money and receive random prizes. Many countries are concerned about their potential harms and are considering regulating them. Industry self-regulation of companies' own behavior is an alternative approach to direct government intervention through legislation. Age rating self-regulatory organizations in North America and Europe began attaching labels ("In-game purchases (random items included)") warning of the presence of loot boxes starting in April 2020. This consumer protection measure has also been implemented in many digital storefronts. In my recent survey, only 29% of popular games that contain loot boxes were correctly labeled in the Google Play Store. Age rating organizations seem to suggest that other digital storefronts with significantly less content, in contrast, will perform significantly better. In this survey, we found that compliance was indeed higher in the stores of Microsoft (89. 1%), Sony (70. 3%), and Nintendo (54. 2%). However, no store achieved the target 95% compliance rate. And the Epic Games Store's compliance rate was only 7. 1%. Following this investigation, some remedial measures were taken, which, while commendable, do not address all outstanding concerns. Companies and platform providers need to better comply with and enforce the rules. In addition to the low effectiveness on mobile platforms, the industry's self-regulation of loot box warning labels is also insufficient.

A loot box is a video game mechanic in which players participate in order to obtain random prizes. Loot boxes, which require players to spend real-world money to purchase loot, i. e. "paid loot boxes", are conceptually and psychologically similar to traditional gambling.[1] In the following, the term "loot box" refers only to "paid loot boxes" unless otherwise noted. Loot boxes are now widely implemented in at least 60% of high-grossing mobile games[2-5] and about one-third of popular PC games[5]. Furthermore, many games that contain loot boxes are judged by companies, app stores, and age rating agencies to be suitable for adolescents, including children aged 4 and older[2-5]. This is because the presence of loot boxes is not a consideration for increasing a game's age rating in most countries[6, 7], except in certain limited circumstances[8] in Germany's recently revised USK (Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle) system. In fact, the UK gambling regulator reports that in 2022, 24% of 11-16 year olds purchased loot boxes with real-world money [9].

Cross-sectional player studies have repeatedly and consistently found that spending on loot boxes is positively correlated with problem gambling severity [10-12], and meta-analyses [13, 14] have confirmed this relationship. This relationship was also found in adolescent samples [15, 16] who generally do not have legal access to traditional gambling activities, but who are able to purchase video game loot boxes. These results suggest that through monetization of loot boxes, video game companies may be unfairly benefiting from vulnerable consumers who may be experiencing severe psychological distress [17] (although evidence to the contrary has also been presented) [18, 19, 20]. Concerns have been raised, particularly as children and adolescents are more vulnerable to potential harm and may not be able to understand the associated risks and make informed purchasing decisions [16, 21-23].

Some research [14, 24] have been found to have a positive correlation with a problematic video game in some research [14, 24], which is highly enthusiastic about video games. Players suggest that they may have experienced several kinds of harm: financial [25] and game play time [26]. (In addition, when trying to "acquire" no n-billing loots that can be obtained through game play, players may use too much time and experience harm [27]). In light of these potential harm and concerns, the industry promises to implement measures to minimize harm by enhancing transparency. [28-31] In this study, at the Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and the main video game game store run by Epic, companies disclose the existence of a loot box in the game and warn the players and parents. I was empirically evaluated. The result was not satisfactory. Many games have been found in a compliance violation that, despite the fact that the loot box is included, has not disclosed the facts regularly. Both individual companies and platform providers can do it better and do so. The expense of the loot box has been found in some research [14, 24] that there is a positive correlation with a problematic video game, which is highly enthusiastic about video games. Players suggest that they may have experienced several kinds of harm, one for gamplaying time [25] and game play time [26]. (In addition, when trying to "acquire" no n-billing loots that can be obtained through game play, players may use too much time and experience harm [27]). In light of these potential harm and concerns, the industry promises to implement measures to minimize harm by enhancing transparency. [28-31] In this study, at the Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and the main video game game store run by Epic, companies disclose the existence of a loot box in the game and warn the players and parents. I was empirically evaluated. The result was not satisfactory. Many games have been found in a compliance violation that, despite the fact that the loot box is included, has not disclosed the facts regularly. Both individual companies and platform providers can do it better and do so. Some research [14, 24] have been found to have a positive correlation with a problematic video game in some research [14, 24], which is highly enthusiastic about video games. Players suggest that they may have experienced several kinds of harm: financial [25] and game play time [26]. (In addition, when trying to "acquire" exempted loots that can be obtained through game play, players may spend too much time and experience harm. In light of these potential harm and concerns, the industry promises to implement measures to minimize harm by enhancing transparency. [28-31] In this study, at the Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and the main video game game store run by Epic, companies disclose the existence of a loot box in the game and warn the players and parents. I was empirically evaluated. The result was not satisfactory. It has been found that many games are in compliance, despite the fact that they have not disclosed the facts. Both individual companies and platform providers can do it better and do so.

1.4 Loot Box Regulation

Video games were once primarily monetized using the "game-as-a-product" model, where players purchased a license to use the video game software at a set price. Certain games, such as World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), employ a different subscription-based monetization model, where players pay a set price for temporary access to gameplay for a set period of time (e. g., 60 days).[32, 33] However, over the past decade, games have adopted the "games-as-a-service" model, where revenue is generated through players making various in-game purchases (including loot boxes).[34] Although these are often referred to as "microtransactions," in-game purchases are not trivial or "micro" in value, but can be, for example, US$99 or more, and may be purchased multiple times. In fact, SuperData estimates that in 2020, microtransactions accounted for 88% of the global video game industry revenue in a 10-month period, amounting to $92. 6 billion in value terms.[35] While many new games are released under the GaaS model, several popular "premium" GaaS games that previously required players to purchase a copy of the software, such as Rocket League (Psyonix, 2016)[36], have also moved to a "free-to-play" GaaS model. Many games that are already sold as products now offer additional microtransactions to generate even more revenue from their player base, further highlighting the important role that microtransactions now play in the commercial video game context.

The aspect of the video game design is specified by Zagal and others as a s o-called "dark pattern" [37]. It doesn't try to improve the player's experience for the best benefits of the player, but let the player have some negative experience and do not do anything after that (for example, spend money. It was ideas to make it. Microtransaction design and implementation directly affect the player's experience. In the original conceptual concept proposed by Zagal et al., "Financial Dark Pattern" [37 (pp. 4-5)] has specified one category of the dark pattern. For example, some aspects of the game may be excessively difficult or boring to encourage players to skip the real world money. Recently, many of the existing monetization method implemented by designers have been negatively regarded by players, "misleading", and "aggressive". Identify, for example, permit other players to spend the money in the real world to gain competitive advantage (s o-called "Pa y-t o-Win"), and use the real world money. Unless otherwise, pay for the basic "quality of life" function, such as restricting the inventor spaces in the game (essential for fun gameplay experiences in these games) to store items. Forced players [39]. Such "problematic" or "looting" microtransactions tend to be often found in mobile phone games. Video Game Design aspects are identified as a s o-called "dark pattern" [37] by Zagal et al. It doesn't try to improve the player's experience for the best benefits of the player, but let the player have some negative experience and do not do anything after that (for example, spend money. It was ideas to make it. Microtransaction design and implementation directly affect the player's experience. In the original conceptual concept proposed by Zagal et al., "Financial Dark Pattern" [37 (pp. 4-5)] has specified one category of the dark pattern. For example, some aspects of the game may be excessively difficult or boring to encourage players to skip the real world money. Recently, many of the existing monetization method implemented by designers have been negatively regarded by players, "misleading", and "aggressive". Identify, for example, permit other players to spend the money in the real world to gain competitive advantage (s o-called "Pa y-t o-Win"), and use the real world money. Unless otherwise, pay for the basic "quality of life" function, such as restricting the inventor spaces in the game (essential for fun gameplay experiences in these games) to store items. Forced players [39]. Such "problematic" or "looting" microtransactions tend to be often found in mobile phone games. The aspect of the video game design is specified by Zagal and others as a s o-called "dark pattern" [37]. It doesn't try to improve the player's experience for the best benefits of the player, but let the player have some negative experience and do not do anything after that (for example, spend money. It was ideas to make it. Microtransaction design and implementation directly affect the player's experience. In the original conceptual concept proposed by Zagal et al., "Financial Dark Pattern" [37 (pp. 4-5)] has specified one category of the dark pattern. For example, some aspects of the game may be excessively difficult or boring to encourage players to skip the real world money. Recently, many of the existing monetization method implemented by designers have been negatively regarded by players, "misleading", and "aggressive". Identify, for example, permit other players to spend the money in the real world to gain competitive advantage (s o-called "Pa y-t o-Win"), and use the real world money. Unless otherwise, pay for the basic "quality of life" function, such as restricting the inventor spaces in the game (essential for fun gameplay experiences in these games) to store items. Forced players [39]. Such "problematic" or "looting" microtransactions tend to be often found in mobile phone games.

1.5 Industry Self-regulation: Loot Box Presence Warning Labels

Fairly and transparent i n-game design and implementation are important to guarantee players' aggressive gameplay experiences. When you look through most ethical lenses, you take the risk of producing and operating video games and intend to gain financial interests by providing new products and experiences to players. Not bad [40 (p. 232)]. However, games that are too aggressive to monetize are received by players as looted and no n-ethical [39], and such players are no longer involved in the game, no money in the game, which causes games. There is a possibility that you will not be able to make profit. Game companies and their designers need to balance revenue and provide fair player experiences, and do not act to infringe consumer protection, data protection, and contract methods in any case. One of the important aspects is to properly disclose the important information necessary for consumers to obtain sufficient information and make decisions on transactions [41 (p. 580)]. Design and implementation of fair and transparent i n-game billing is important to guarantee players' aggressive gameplay experiences. When you look through most ethical lenses, you take the risk of producing and operating video games and intend to gain financial interests by providing new products and experiences to players. Not bad [40 (p. 232)]. However, games that are too aggressive to monetize are received by players as looted and no n-ethical [39], and such players are no longer involved in the game, no money in the game, which causes games. There is a possibility that you will not be able to make profit. Game companies and their designers need to balance revenue and provide fair player experiences, and do not act to infringe consumer protection, data protection, and contract methods in any case. One of the important aspects is to properly disclose the important information necessary for consumers to obtain sufficient information and make decisions on transactions [41 (p. 580)]. Fairly and transparent i n-game design and implementation are important to guarantee players' aggressive gameplay experiences. When you look through most ethical lenses, you take the risk of producing and operating video games and intend to gain financial interests by providing new products and experiences to players. Not bad [40 (p. 232)]. However, games that are too aggressive to monetize are received by players as looted and no n-ethical [39], and such players are no longer involved in the game, no money in the game, which causes games. There is a possibility that you will not be able to make profit. Game companies and their designers need to balance revenue and provide fair player experiences, and do not act to infringe consumer protection, data protection, and contract methods in any case. One of the important aspects is to properly disclose the important information necessary for consumers to obtain sufficient information and make decisions on transactions [41 (p. 580)].

"Loot boxes" is understood in the context of this study as "in-game transactions with randomized elements"[30]. This definition is used instead of "loot boxes" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), an industry self-regulatory body that regulates video game content and provides age ratings in North America, to encompass the broader phenomenon of various types of in-game purchases with gambling-like mechanics (although the ESRB does not acknowledge any association with gambling[42]) or randomization.[30] This broad definition encompasses both (i) virtual products that offer random rewards that are not necessarily visually depicted as "boxes," such as character summons or "gacha" systems [43, 44], (ii) in which players spend real-world money for the possibility of obtaining random improvements to existing in-game weapons [45 (p. 353)], and (iii) other types of in-game purchases with randomization, such as in-game purchases that are randomized ... 353)], and (iii) simulated or social casino games. [46]. (Note that there is debate in the academic literature about whether it is appropriate to use "loot boxes" as such a catch-all term, and in particular whether simulated and social casino games, which may be more harmful than "traditional" loot boxes, should be considered a type of "loot box". [47, cf. 48]). Furthermore, the diversity of loot box design features is discussed in Ballou et al.

Loot boxes, generally a type of microtransaction, have come under academic and regulatory scrutiny, likely due to their unique involvement of randomization mechanisms not present in other in-game purchases (such as season passes or battle passes [51, 52], which may introduce other risks and have been criticized for not being transparent about how long players must play the game before they finally get all the rewards they appear to have purchased) [34, 38]. With loot boxes, players do not know exactly what they are buying, which may affect whether they make an informed decision to spend money. Neely argues that any form of in-game purchase with randomized rewards is ethically problematic, since the same game could be monetized without loot boxes (i. e., the same in-game content could be sold without randomization) [40 (pp. 233-234)].

Goodstein suggests that the implementation of a loot box generally configures dark patterns [53 (pp. 300-302)], but the side with the design of the loot box is a dark pattern. It is more likely that the position is too extreme because it is more reasonable to claim. The original book of Zagal and others regarding the dark pattern of video games: "We don't consider gambling (or bet) as a dark pattern, because players are involved in interaction. "[37 (p. 4))]. [37 (p. 4)] (emphasis). If the game does not contain any gamblin g-like elements at all, or if the win rate related to those elements has not been properly announced, the player has decided to participate with it. Not (that is, as in Zagal's words [37 (p. 4)], it is not "I decided to participate after getting enough information"). 。 Therefore, the implementation of a loot box that does not properly disclose important information (the games contain a loot and the probability of acquiring rare rewards) is a dark pattern. It is more persuasive to do. Similarly, such suspicious aspects in the implementation of a loot box (for example, not disclosing important information) are likely to fall under illegal commercial services that are against the consumption tax. Goodstein suggests that the implementation of a loot box generally constitutes a dark pattern [53 (pp. 300-302)], but the side with the design of the loot box is dark. It is more likely to be too extreme because it is more reasonable to claim a pattern. The original book of Zagal and others regarding the dark pattern of video games: "We don't consider gambling (or bet) as a dark pattern, because players are involved in interaction. "[37 (p. 4))]. [37 (p. 4)] (emphasis). If the game does not contain any gamblin g-like elements at all, or if the win rate related to those elements has not been properly announced, the player has decided to participate with it. Not (that is, as in Zagal's words [37 (p. 4)], it is not "I decided to participate after getting enough information"). 。 Therefore, the implementation of a loot box that does not properly disclose important information (the games contain a loot and the probability of acquiring rare rewards) is a dark pattern. It is more persuasive to do. Similarly, such suspicious aspects in the implementation of a loot box (for example, not disclosing important information) are likely to fall under illegal commercial services that are against the consumption tax. Goodstein suggests that the implementation of a loot box generally configures dark patterns [53 (pp. 300-302)], but the side with the design of the loot box is a dark pattern. It is more likely that the position is too extreme because it is more reasonable to claim. The original book of Zagal and others regarding the dark pattern of video games: "We don't consider gambling (or bet) as a dark pattern, because players are involved in interaction. "[37 (p. 4))]. [37 (p. 4)] (emphasis). If the game does not contain any gamblin g-like elements at all, or if the win rate related to those elements has not been properly announced, the player has decided to participate with it. Not (that is, as in Zagal's words [37 (p. 4)], it is not "I decided to participate after getting enough information"). 。 Therefore, the implementation of a loot box that does not properly disclose important information (the games contain a loot and the probability of acquiring rare rewards) is a dark pattern. It is more persuasive to do. Similarly, such suspicious aspects in the implementation of a loot box (for example, not disclosing important information) are likely to fall under illegal commercial services that are against the consumption tax.

A cros s-cutting research that identifies the danger factors related to the loot box (for example, problem gambling, problem video games, and experience of psychological distress) is summarized in the introduction section [11, 13, 14 ]. The population statistics of players who are often involved in the box box (for example, young, male, educational backgrounds other than university, unemployment, unemployed) are similar to those who are involved in other habitual behaviors and experience harm from it [55. ]. The main criticism of the research in the loot box so far, that is, the criticism that all research was all over, and could not prove the causal relationship, and the young people who recently purchased a loot box were six months later. [56, 57], who has participated in gambling and proves that it is more likely to spend more money [56, 57].

Considering the potential harm, it is thought that the issue of a loot box is very relevant to the players in addition to academic and policy interests. This is because many players have been instructed to not be so in research on Petrovskaya and Zendle, who tried to evaluate i n-game monetization about i n-game monetization. It can be seen from the fact that we have decided to discuss the loot box [39 (p. 1074)]. A qualitative study on players who buy a loot box has revealed that many players have negative opinions on their loot boxes and companies that implement them. The vulnerable player states that the motivation for buying a loot box is an obsession and fear of missing. [59] Some players sel f-reported that they had experienced damage due to the involvement of a loot box. Parents with minor players are of course concerned about content that accesses children [61] and mental and economic damage that could cause it [21]. Developers and publishers also have specific actions to comply with regulatory requirements (for example, change the design of a loot box [2, 62], display forced information on products [3, 4, 41 ( P. 580)], so I am interested in this area because it may be necessary. Traditional research to identify the danger factor of financial damage (for example, problem gambling, problem video games, and experience of psychological pain) is summarized in the introduction section [11, 13, 14]. The population statistics of players who are often involved in the box box (for example, young, male, educational backgrounds other than university, unemployment, unemployed) are similar to those who are involved in other habitual behaviors and experience harm from it [55. ]. The main criticism of the research in the loot box so far, that is, the criticism that all research was all over, and could not prove the causal relationship, and the young people who recently purchased a loot box were six months later. [56, 57], who has participated in gambling and proves that it is more likely to spend more money [56, 57].

Considering the potential harm, it is thought that the issue of a loot box is very relevant to the players in addition to academic and policy interests. This is because many players have been instructed to not be so in research on Petrovskaya and Zendle, who tried to evaluate i n-game monetization about i n-game monetization. It can be seen from the fact that we have decided to discuss the loot box [39 (p. 1074)]. A qualitative study on players who buy a loot box has revealed that many players have negative opinions on their loot boxes and companies that implement them. The vulnerable player states that the motivation for buying a loot box is an obsession and fear of missing. [59] Some players sel f-reported that they had experienced damage due to the involvement of a loot box. Parents with minor players are of course concerned about content that accesses children [61] and mental and economic damage that could cause it [21]. Developers and publishers also have specific actions to comply with regulatory requirements (for example, change the design of a loot box [2, 62], display forced information on products [3, 4, 41 ( P. 580)], so I am interested in this area because it may be necessary. A cros s-cutting research that identifies the danger factors related to the loot box (for example, problem gambling, problem video games, and experience of psychological distress) is summarized in the introduction section [11, 13, 14 ]. The population statistics of players who are often involved in the box box (for example, young, male, educational backgrounds other than university, unemployment, unemployed) are similar to those who are involved in other habitual behaviors and experience harm from it [55. ]. The main criticism of the research in the loot box so far, that is, the criticism that all research was all over, and could not prove the causal relationship, and the young people who recently purchased a loot box were six months later. [56, 57], who has participated in gambling and proves that it is more likely to spend more money [56, 57].

1.6 Those “Other Storefronts”: Better Compliance with Smaller Volume?

Already, some countries have moved to legally regulate loot boxes.[41, 62-65] Belgium is attempting to "ban" loot boxes by enforcing its existing gambling law (which is more broadly drafted than other countries).[66] However, empirical research has found that loot boxes continue to be widely implemented in high-grossing mobile games because gambling regulators lack sufficient resources to actually criminally prosecute companies and enforce the law.[2] The Dutch gambling regulator attempted to enforce gambling laws against loot boxes in Electronic Arts' FIFA series,[67] but a Dutch court subsequently determined that loot boxes generally cannot be regulated by domestic gambling laws.[68] Instead, video game companies are required to make probability disclosures to better inform consumers about the chances of receiving certain rewards.[69] This would provide transparency and help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions. However, empirical research has found that while most companies comply by disclosing the probabilities, most disclosures are not visually salient and are difficult for players to access. For example, in one game, starting from the loot box purchase screen, players had to tap multiple buttons and follow multiple hyperlinks before the probabilities were displayed.[4] These examples are

An alternative to legal regulation is industry self-regulation.[65] This is when hardware providers (e. g., Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo), digital storefronts (e. g., Google Play Store or Apple App Store.[3, 61]), industry associations (e. g., Entertainment Software Association (ESA)[28] or UKie.[70]), or individual companies (both developers and publishers) decide to adopt certain measures to enhance consumer protection beyond existing legal requirements.[71, 72] This approach has certain advantages, such as the ability to respond more quickly to novel developments in the industry than legal regulation, and the ability to have specialized video game knowledge that more general government regulators may lack.[3] However, when engaging in self-regulation, the industry will always be in conflict, since effective regulation (e. g., regulation that clearly reduces spending) will work against its own commercial self-interest in generating revenue. The adoption of industry self-regulation has also been relied upon by industry to oppose the imposition of stricter legal regulation.[73, 74] Studies of other industries offering (potentially) harmful products, such as alcohol, have found that companies may promote industry self-regulation, the effectiveness of which has not been tested, not to genuinely enhance consumer protection, but to appease consumer concerns, reduce public scrutiny, and discourage more effective and restrictive legal regulation.[75] Perceptions

In the context of loot boxes, two types of industry self-regulation have been adopted. First, many hardware and software platforms now mandate the disclosure of loot box probabilities. This means that consumers living outside of regions where probability disclosure is required by law (e. g., China) can still benefit from this information. However, in the UK [3], only two-thirds of games containing loot boxes complied with industry self-regulation, whereas in China [4], nearly all games containing loot boxes appear to have complied. Second, age rating organizations that govern video game content (e. g., ESRB in North America and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) in Europe) have introduced labels that warn of the presence of loot boxes. Specifically, since April 2020, games that contain loot boxes, or indeed any “in-game transactions containing random elements” [30], now display the phrase “In-game purchase (contains random items)” (see Figures 1 and 2). Ukie’s mid-2023 self-regulatory principles and guidance reaffirm that these are necessary to enhance consumer protection[77].

2 Method

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

The label was introduced to inform consumers if a game contains loot boxes so that they are not surprised by their presence after purchasing or downloading the game[30, 31]. This measure helps consumers and parents to avoid purchasing or downloading games that contain loot boxes if they do not want their children to be involved in such mechanisms. These labels warning of the presence of loot boxes have previously been criticized for not being informative enough, and for inventing unfamiliar terms that players and consumers do not already know, rather than simply referring to "loot boxes" or "gacha".[61, 80] Under experimental conditions, these labels would be incomprehensible to most consumers, and therefore likely do not actually "provide sufficient information to inform consumers' consumption decisions".[81]

The label is applied differently for physically and digitally released games. For physical games, my recent research confirmed that both the ESRB and PEGI made at least one rating error by failing to label a game that contained loot boxes.[61] Furthermore, the ESRB decided that games rated before the label was introduced (i. e., before April 13, 2020) did not need to be labeled retroactively, meaning that many games containing loot boxes in North America were not labeled correctly and will not be labeled in the future, meaning consumers cannot trust the label to provide accurate information.[61] In contrast, PEGI decided to apply the measure retroactively, meaning that nearly all games containing loot boxes that were rated before April 13, 2020 will be labeled in Europe.[61] The label is applied differently for physically and digitally released games. For physical games, my recent research confirmed that both the ESRB and PEGI made at least one rating error by failing to attach a label to a game that contained loot boxes.[61] Furthermore, the ESRB decided that games rated before the label was introduced (i. e., before April 13, 2020) did not need to be retroactively labeled, meaning that many games containing loot boxes in North America were not and will not be labeled correctly, and consumers cannot trust the label to provide accurate information.[61] In contrast, PEGI decided to apply this measure retroactively, meaning that nearly all games containing loot boxes that were rated before April 13, 2020 will be labeled in Europe.[61] The label is applied differently for games released physically and digitally. For physical games, my recent research confirmed that both the ESRB and PEGI made at least one rating error by failing to label games that contained loot boxes.[61] Furthermore, the ESRB decided that games rated before the labels were introduced (i. e., before April 13, 2020) did not need to be labeled retroactively, meaning that many games containing loot boxes in North America were not and will not be labeled correctly, and consumers cannot trust the labels to provide accurate information.[61] In contrast, PEGI decided to apply this measure retroactively, meaning that nearly all games containing loot boxes that were rated before April 13, 2020 will be labeled in Europe.[61]

Regarding digital games, age rating and content information are provided through the International Age Rating Union (IARC), and IARC creates age rating based on sel f-disclosure of companies in the questionnaire, and has wields to games worldwide. The label of the item box is attached. The Google Play Store uses IARC systems, so games containing a loot box may be labeled on the platform. However, when I checked independently in January 2023, only 29%of the 100 popular games, including the box box, were properly labeled. [61] The majority was not labeled. IARC claims that this measure was adopted in the Google Play Store in February 2022, and that only games that have been rated after that need to be labeled. [61] is trying to justify a wide range of no n-compliance. In other words, most of the games containing a loot box have no duty to display, so this measure cannot be relied on when consumers and parents provide accurate information about the existence of a loot box. Most of the most popular and popular games are now released before February 2022, and in consideration of this situation is unlikely to change in the next few years, this measure is not implemented in the Google Play Store. It was enough. PEGI and IARC, which supports IARC, in contrast to my recent surveys [61], the Google Play Store is a huge amount of available content (according to IARC, "hundreds of thousands of games" [83]. According to another information source [84], individual games are estimated to be 500, 000) and realistic difficulties to accurately reconsider the rating decisions of all of these games. He claims that it raises unique issues. Pegi states in particular: "We (PEGI) do not have such problems at other store fronts." Regarding digital games, age rating and content information are provided through the International Age Rating Union (IARC), and IARC creates an age rating based on sel f-disclosure of a company in the questionnaire and is worldwide. [82] The label of the wire box is attached to the game. The Google Play Store uses IARC systems, so games containing a loot box may be labeled on the platform. However, when I checked independently in January 2023, only 29%of the 100 popular games, including the box box, were properly labeled. [61] The majority was not labeled. IARC claims that this measure was adopted in the Google Play Store in February 2022, and that only games that have been rated after that need to be labeled. [61] is trying to justify a wide range of no n-compliance. In other words, most of the games containing a loot box have no duty to display, so this measure cannot be relied on when consumers and parents provide accurate information about the existence of a loot box. Most of the most popular and popular games are now released before February 2022, and in consideration of this situation is unlikely to change in the next few years, this measure is not implemented in the Google Play Store. It was enough. PEGI and IARC, which supports IARC, in contrast to my recent surveys [61], the Google Play Store is a huge amount of available content (according to IARC, "hundreds of thousands of games" [83]. According to another information source [84], individual games are estimated to be 500, 000) and realistic difficulties to accurately reconsider the rating decisions of all of these games. He claims that it raises unique issues. Pegi states in particular: "We (PEGI) do not have such problems at other store fronts." Regarding digital games, age rating and content information are provided through the International Age Rating Union (IARC), and IARC creates age rating based on sel f-disclosure of companies in the questionnaire, and has wields to games worldwide. The label of the item box is attached. The Google Play Store uses IARC systems, so games containing a loot box may be labeled on the platform. However, when I checked independently in January 2023, only 29%of the 100 popular games, including the box box, were properly labeled. [61] The majority was not labeled. IARC claims that this measure was adopted in the Google Play Store in February 2022, and that only games that were rated after that would be necessary to comply with this measure and attach labeling. [61] is trying to justify a wide range of no n-compliance. In other words, most of the games containing a loot box have no duty to display, so this measure cannot be relied on when consumers and parents provide accurate information about the existence of a loot box. Most of the most popular and popular games are now released before February 2022, and in consideration of this situation is unlikely to change in the next few years, this measure is not implemented in the Google Play Store. It was enough. PEGI and IARC, which supports IARC, in contrast to my recent surveys [61], the Google Play Store is a huge amount of available content (according to IARC, "hundreds of thousands of games" [83]. According to another information source [84], individual games are estimated to be 500, 000) and realistic difficulties to accurately reconsider the rating decisions of all of these games. He claims that it raises unique issues. Pegi states in particular: "We (PEGI) do not have such problems at other store fronts."

IARC is also held on Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Nintendo ESHOP, and Sony PlayStation Store (see the promotional materials listed on the official IARC site in Fig. 3). PEGI, eventually IARC suggested that compliance with labeling on the existence of a loot box will be significantly improved in other stores. (However, in response to the results of this research, Pegi stated that he did not intend to make such a claim at the remote conference with me on March 17, 2023 [85], and since then. The store front does not necessarily suggest that the performance will be better, but he has pointed out that a huge amount of content is a unique difficulty facing the Google Play Store. This study was originally motivated and implemented based on my interpretation that PEGI appears to be such a claim, and is described in this way.

Figure 3.

Figure 3. As of February 2023, IARC published a variety of participating digital store front and IARC participation agencies. © 2023 IARC (International Age Rating Coalition). Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store for Windows and ESHOP, Sony It is also implemented in Store (published on the IARC official website in Fig. 3) See the promotional materials.) PEGI, eventually IARC suggested that compliance with labeling on the existence of a loot box will be significantly improved in other stores. (However, in response to the results of this research, Pegi stated that he did not intend to make such a claim at the remote conference with me on March 17, 2023 [85], and since then. The store front does not necessarily suggest that the performance will be better, but he has pointed out that a huge amount of content is a unique difficulty facing the Google Play Store. This study was originally motivated and implemented based on my interpretation that PEGI appears to be such a claim, and is described in this way.

3 Results

3.1 Labeling Compliance Rates

Figure 3. Figure 3. As of February 2023, IARC published a variety of participating digital store front and IARC participation agencies. © 2023 IARC (International Age Rating Coalition) . IARC, in Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Sony PlayStation Store It is implemented (promotion published on the IARC official website in Fig. 3) See the document). PEGI, eventually IARC suggested that compliance with labeling on the existence of a loot box will be significantly improved in other stores. (However, in response to the results of this research, Pegi stated that he did not intend to make such a claim at the remote conference with me on March 17, 2023 [85], and since then. The store front does not necessarily suggest that the performance will be better, but he has pointed out that a huge amount of content is a unique difficulty facing the Google Play Store. This study was originally motivated and implemented based on my interpretation that PEGI appears to be such a claim, and is described in this way.

Figure 3.	Figure 3. As of February 2023, IARC published a variety of participating digital store front and IARC participation agencies. © 2023 IARC (International Age Rating Coalition).	In my recent study [61], 186 games (including two duplications, including both lists in both lists) that confirmed that they contain a loot box is included. Sho: (i) 38 games were sel f-displayed by the company that the Google Play Store contained a loot box. (II) 79 games have been reported by the same survey, and the IARC verifies that the loot box is independently included, and the game of (III) 69 69 is displayed. , It was displayed that either ESRB or PEGI contained a loot box, and the display status could not be disgusted from the other (on the other hand, it is incorrect that it does not include a loot box. The four physical games that were recognized and positive and one physical game that could not be purchased from the PEGI area were excluded).	After deleting two overlapping games, these 184 games are Epic Games Store (https://store. epicgames. com/en-us/), Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox (https://www. xbox Enter in search tools for . com/en-gb/), nintendo eSHOP (https://www. nintendo. co. uk/), Sony PlayStation Store (https://store. playStation. com/en-gb/) I tried to identify the same game version on these platforms. This is the same method in which my recent research [61] uses the Google Play Store search tool to identify the labeling status of the game. In order to receive PEG I-based information, we set up the area and language of the store front (except for the Epic Games Store). Regarding Epic Games Store, PEG I-based information (despite the fact that the web address contained "US [UNITED STES]"). This is because I was in the PEGI area in the concentration of data, so it displayed an IP address that recognizes that Epic Games Store is in the Pegi area. In order to confirm that Epic Games Store has changed the age rating that displays according to the user's IP address instead of the region or language settings, my IP (Virtual Private Network) is used. The address was spoofed and pretended to be from the United States instead. As a result, when accessing the same link, ESR B-based information is displayed instead. In this study, we focused on compliance in the PEGI area.
Based on my prior knowledge, I reviewed the list of 102 "free games and apps" (see below) available on the Nintendo eShop and added 12 games that were found to contain loot boxes to the sample.	14	1	On February 14, 2023, the following two variables were measured for these 72 games:
Availability: Whether the game was available in each of the four storefronts by having a dedicated product page. Games that are still visible but no longer available for purchase are included in the sample with that status (since the game may have been available for purchase until very recently, e. g., August 2022[86], i. e., well after the label was introduced in April 2020). Games that were once available for purchase but are no longer visible were counted as "not available for purchase" since their labeling status could not be confirmed.	55	49	Label status: Whether the game has the "In-game purchases (including random items)" label affixed and displayed.
The labeling "compliance rate" for each of the four stores was calculated as follows:	24	13	\The labeling "compliance rate" for each of the four stores was calculated as follows: \End
Screenshots showing the display status and Safari . webarchive files that saved the viewed web pages were recorded. These are publicly available at the Open Science Framework data deposit link (https://doi. org/10. 17605/OSF. IO/3MS2C).	37	26	The results of this study were then sent to PEGI and USK (a German age rating self-regulatory organization[87] that also participates in IARC[88]), and in turn to IARC. I also understand that the results were forwarded by PEGI to the relevant storefronts with a request for a response (although as of October 2023, more than seven months later, I have not personally received any). I had a remote meeting with PEGI on March 17, 2023 to discuss the findings of this study. I subsequently received formal written responses from PEGI (which may indirectly include the perspective of the storefronts) and USK.

The labeling compliance rates for the four stores are shown in Table 1.

3.2 PEGI and USK Responses: Post-study Labeling Status

Table 1.

Store name

Number of games	Number of games displayed	Compliance rate	Epic Games Store
7. 1%	6	2	4
Microsoft Store	1	N/A	N/A
89. 1%	2	2	1
Nintendo eShop	1	1	3
54. 2%	1	N/A	N/A
Sony PlayStation Store	N/A	1	N/A
70. 3%	N/A	N/A	1
Table 1. Loot box warning label compliance status for various digital storefronts (N = 72)	N/A	N/A	1
Details of the post-investigation status (including remedial actions taken to correct some of the issues) for each game found to be unlabeled for which PEGI responded are shown in Table 2.	N/A	N/A	1

Table 2.

Labeling status after investigation

Sony (n = 11)

Microsoft (n = 6)

Nintendo (n = 11)

Updated and labeled

License was updated very recently, including the label.

4 Discussion

License not updated by publisher (i. e. unlabeled and remains inaccurate)

No longer available

Likely does not contain loot boxes

No loot boxes found (different version of game with same title)

4.1 Accessibility and Visual Prominence

Under investigation. "Does not meet criteria for paid random items".

Still under investigation [but has been updated and shown as verified by me].

Already labeled (see internal inconsistencies below)

Table 2. Post-investigation labeling status of games found to be unlabeled across various digital storefronts

4.2 Responding to PEGI and the USK Responses

Italics used to highlight unresolved issues.

Many games can no longer be purchased or downloaded. As a de facto background, PEGI has decided to call the publisher to be indicated retroactively, including the gait box, if the game was rated before the label was introduced in April 2020. (In contrast to ESRB, which has decided not to display any games retroactively); most of the publishers should be praised. As a result, the labeling status and rating information of many games have been retroactively changed in the PEGI system. However, this "update" to add labels had to be performed manually and was not done effectively. The game influenced by this problem is currently displayed accurately. However, the two games that are very popular, including the Rainbow Siege (Ubisoft, 2015) and the Pubg BattleGrounds (Pubg Studios & Amp), are spilled out. Return the tinged information Since it has not been updated, the label is still not affixed and we continue to provide incorrect information (that is, the existence of a loot box has not been disclosed). There are no other unresolved problems with Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Sony PlayStation Store. Many games can no longer be purchased or downloaded. As a de facto background, PEGI has decided to call the publisher to be indicated retroactively, including the gait box, if the game was rated before the label was introduced in April 2020. (In contrast to ESRB, which has decided not to display any games retroactively); most of the publishers should be praised. As a result, the labeling status and rating information of many games have been retroactively changed in the PEGI system. However, this "update" to add labels had to be performed manually and was not done effectively. The game influenced by this problem is currently displayed accurately. However, the two games that are very popular, including the Rainbow Siege (Ubisoft, 2015) and the Pubg BattleGrounds (Pubg Studios & Amp), are spilled out. Return the tinged information Since it has not been updated, the label is still not affixed and we continue to provide incorrect information (that is, the existence of a loot box has not been disclosed). There are no other unresolved problems with Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Sony PlayStation Store. Many games can no longer be purchased or downloaded. As a de facto background, PEGI has decided to call the publisher to be indicated retroactively, including the gait box, if the game was rated before the label was introduced in April 2020. (In contrast to ESRB, which has decided not to display any games retroactively); most of the publishers should be praised. As a result, the labeling status and rating information of many games have been retroactively changed in the PEGI system. However, this "update" to add labels had to be performed manually and was not done effectively. The game influenced by this problem is currently displayed accurately. However, the two games that are very popular, including the Rainbow Siege (Ubisoft, 2015) and the Pubg BattleGrounds (Pubg Studios & Amp), are spilled out. Return the tinged information Since it has not been updated, the label is still not affixed and we continue to provide incorrect information (that is, the existence of a loot box has not been disclosed). There are no other unresolved problems with Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Sony PlayStation Store.

The status of Nintendo E Shop is more complicated. Games without label were evaluated using simple IARC procedures for digital release, rather than more complicated PEGI procedures for games intended for physical release. Most of these labeled games were evaluated before the introduction of the label, according to PEGI. As a de facto background, IARC's policy is not obliged to attach a label to a rated game (the date is not published) before the label is introduced at the store. Nevertheless, this survey confirmed that the loot box was included, and then the label is currently labeled to all games, excluding one game confirmed by PEGI. The remaining game is still not labeled because the license is not updated by the publisher. It is not understood why this is not forcibly performed because the IARC system is retroactively applied to other identified games (and in all previous cases, labels. It is unknown whether publisher's consent was obtained to put it, but it seems that it is unlikely). When PEGI's answer was sent, two other games remained unraveled. One of the games "Pokémon Unite" (Timi & Amp; The Pokémon Company, 2021), at that time, whether or not i n-game billing, including random elements) As of May 16, 2023, I was investigating, and after that, the game was officially labeled. Another game "Pokemon Quest" (Game Freak & Nintendo, 2018) was determined by PEGI that it did not meet the label standards (that is, i n-game, i n-game purchases including random elements. It was not included).

Despite the official claim that the IARC system is the "participating store front" of the IARC system, the status of the Epic Games store is "full development", so the age rating system is not properly implemented. It was the cause [88].

PEGI also says that "consumers cannot buy or access these games", "If the publishers and games are no longer active, the remaining store front will not be updated." He argued that a game that "can be viewed but cannot be purchased" should be excluded from the sample when calculating the compliance rate. This criticism has been featured in the "consideration" section.

4.3 Limitations

In response to this result, USK only confirmed that Epic Games is in the process of implementing the IARC system, suggesting that "implementation will take time" is expected and acceptable. When asked to comment on the current unsatisfactory compliance situation in various storefronts, USK did not offer a position, nor did it state how it intends to improve the situation.

In this study, we assessed whether games containing loot boxes are properly displayed in accordance with industry self-regulation in four IARC-managed storefronts. In my recent study [61], we judged a compliance rate of 95% or higher to be near-perfect compliance with self-regulation and worthy of praise, 80%-95% to be near compliance, although improvement is needed, and 80% or lower to be insufficient compliance and requiring significant improvement to achieve the regulatory objectives. These cutoff values and their corresponding interpretations are based on what I personally consider to be "'satisfactory' self-regulatory measures, and what [I] judge most policymakers to agree with" [61 (p. 7)]. The Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox had a compliance rate of 89. 1%, so they came close to the highest level of compliance, but did not achieve it. This indicates that the measure is feasible (at least on platforms with a smaller number of games) and that it is possible to achieve a 95% compliance rate. The Sony PlayStation Store (70. 3% compliance) and Nintendo eShop (54. 2% compliance) performed worse. These results indicate that platform providers are not fulfilling their monitoring and enforcement obligations satisfactorily, even on platforms that are easier to manage than the Google Play Store. Sony and Nintendo

It seems that Nintendo's results were worse than Microsoft and Sony's results, because of the many fre e-t o-play titles. The evaluation of the IARC system was required to have an additional inspection by an independent evaluator [89], not a Pegi system that demanded a retroactive labeling of the game, but a company whose interests are conflicting. It is an IARC system that relys on disclosure (and potentially independently) and did not require labeling a retroactive loot box to the company. The latter is apparently taking advantage of a responsible, but has not been used exclusively for games released in digital [61]. As of March 20, 2023, Nintendo E Shop has only 102 free games and apps for Nintendo Switch (it is clear from the web pages printed on the data deposit link). This partially indicates that the content that must be regulated by the IARC system of other stores is significantly small compared to the huge IARC regulation content of the Google Play Store. In other words, the implementation of compliance at other stores should have been quite easy. In fact, considering that the amount of content available is limited, these stores answered (i) to the sel f-disclosure questionnaire (the current IARC system is already requested) and (IARC system) II) It is even possible to consider adopting a tw o-stage rating process, which is evaluated by an independent reviewer. Nintendo's result was worse than Microsoft and Sony's results, probably because of the many fre e-t o-play titles. The evaluation of the IARC system was required to have an additional inspection by an independent evaluator [89], not a Pegi system that demanded a retroactive labeling of the game, but a company whose interests are conflicting. It is an IARC system that relys on disclosure (and potentially independently) and did not require labeling a retroactive loot box to the company. The latter is apparently taking advantage of a responsible, but has not been used exclusively for games released in digital [61]. As of March 20, 2023, Nintendo E Shop has only 102 free games and apps for Nintendo Switch (it is clear from the web pages printed on the data deposit link). This partially indicates that the content that must be regulated by the IARC system of other stores is significantly small compared to the huge IARC regulation content of the Google Play Store. In other words, the implementation of compliance at other stores should have been quite easy. In fact, considering that the amount of content available is limited, these stores answered (i) to the sel f-disclosure questionnaire (the current IARC system is already requested) and (IARC system) II) It is even possible to consider adopting a tw o-stage rating process, which is evaluated by an independent reviewer. It seems that Nintendo's results were worse than Microsoft and Sony's results, because of the many fre e-t o-play titles. The evaluation of the IARC system was required to have an additional inspection by an independent evaluator [89], not a Pegi system that demanded a retroactive labeling of the game, but a company whose interests are conflicting. It is an IARC system that relys on disclosure (and potentially independently) and did not require labeling a retroactive loot box to the company. The latter is apparently taking advantage of a responsible, but has not been used exclusively for games released in digital [61]. As of March 20, 2023, Nintendo E Shop has only 102 free games and apps for Nintendo Switch (it is clear from the web pages printed on the data deposit link). This partially indicates that the content that must be regulated by the IARC system of other stores is significantly small compared to the huge IARC regulation content of the Google Play Store. In other words, the implementation of compliance at other stores should have been quite easy. In fact, considering that the amount of content available is limited, these stores answered (i) to the sel f-disclosure questionnaire (the current IARC system is already requested) and (IARC system) II) It is even possible to consider adopting a tw o-stage rating process, which is evaluated by an independent reviewer.

All of the three store front (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) mentioned above have a better performance than the Google Play Store, which could only achieve 29%of the recent surveys [61] Showed me. In contrast, the performance of the Epic Games store was even worse than the Google Play Store, and only one of the 14 games, including a loot box, was displayed. For example, FIFA 23 (ELECTRONIC ARTS, 2022), one of the most incorporated series of video games containing a loot box, is not displayed in the Epic Games store, but instead a genera l-i n-game label. Is displayed. FIFA 23 is displayed on the Epic Games Store to be released on September 30, 2022. The only game "Roller Champions" (Ubisoft, 2022), which was displayed in the Epic Games store, was June 23, 2022, and the "initial release day" before that was May 25, 2022. It was. FIFA 23 was released after Roller Champions. Therefore, it is only recently that this label was adopted in the Epic Games Store, and even if it is a debate that may not have been retroactively applied, there is a missing Label in FIFA 23. You cannot be exempted. The Epic Games store is operated by Epic Games. In recent years, the company has been in a very ant i-route box, contrasting that other industries have taken a preleat box or neutral position. For example, Epic Games CEO has publicly criticized the loot box and urges companies to stop selling to make consumers more fair. In fact, Epic Games is "investing". The three store front (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) mentioned above all performed better than the Google Play Store, which could only achieve 29%of the compliance rate in my recent survey (61] It was expensive). In contrast, the performance of the Epic Games store was even worse than the Google Play Store, and only one of the 14 games, including a loot box, was displayed. For example, FIFA 23 (ELECTRONIC ARTS, 2022), one of the most incorporated series of video games containing a loot box, is not displayed in the Epic Games store, but instead a genera l-i n-game label. Is displayed. FIFA 23 is displayed on the Epic Games Store to be released on September 30, 2022. The only game "Roller Champions" (Ubisoft, 2022), which was displayed in the Epic Games store, was June 23, 2022, and the "initial release day" before that was May 25, 2022. It was. FIFA 23 was released after Roller Champions. Therefore, it is only recently that this label was adopted in the Epic Games Store, and even if it is a debate that may not have been retroactively applied, there is a missing Label in FIFA 23. You cannot be exempted. The Epic Games store is operated by Epic Games. In recent years, the company has been in a very ant i-route box, contrasting that other industries have taken a preleat box or neutral position. For example, Epic Games CEO has publicly criticized the loot box and urges companies to stop selling to make consumers more fair. In fact, Epic Games is "investing". All of the three store front (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) mentioned above have a better performance than the Google Play Store, which could only achieve 29%of the recent surveys [61] Showed me. In contrast, the performance of the Epic Games store was even worse than the Google Play Store, and only one of the 14 games, including a loot box, was displayed. For example, FIFA 23 (ELECTRONIC ARTS, 2022), one of the most incorporated series of video games containing a loot box, is not displayed in the Epic Games store, but instead a genera l-i n-game label. Is displayed. FIFA 23 is displayed on the Epic Games Store to be released on September 30, 2022. The only game "Roller Champions" (Ubisoft, 2022), which was displayed in the Epic Games store, was June 23, 2022, and the "initial release day" before that was May 25, 2022. It was. FIFA 23 was released after Roller Champions. Therefore, it is only recently that this label was adopted in the Epic Games Store, and even if it is a debate that may not have been retroactively applied, there is a missing Label in FIFA 23. You cannot be exempted. The Epic Games store is operated by Epic Games. In recent years, the company has been in a very ant i-route box, contrasting that other industries have taken a preleat box or neutral position. For example, Epic Games CEO has publicly criticized the loot box and urges companies to stop selling to make consumers more fair. In fact, Epic Games is "investing".

In addition to platform providers needing to better enforce the rules, individual companies that broke the rules by failing to label their games in the first place must also improve by better understanding their compliance obligations and strengthening their internal legal and compliance procedures. For example, PUBG Battlegrounds failed to label on all three platforms on which it is available. Interestingly, the company has published information about loot boxes and odds disclosure on its website[95]. The latest post contained the following sentence four times: “Due to legal regulations, [loot boxes] are not available for purchase in Belgium and the Netherlands. Given the two specific countries cited (whose loot box regulations have been highly publicized, but see section 1. 1 above for the exact current legal position), this “legal regulation” must refer to gambling laws. Thus, while the company that operates “PUBG Battlegrounds” appears to understand and respect its legal obligations, it is not fulfilling its industry self-regulatory obligations. These companies were either unaware of the relevant industry self-regulation (which is hard to believe, but the game is one of the most popular games run by a well-established company, so there should be knowledgeable legal and compliance teams) or actively chose not to comply with the industry self-regulation (but chose to comply with the Belgian and Dutch laws). If the latter, then in addition to platform providers needing to better enforce the rules, individual companies who broke the rules by failing to label their games in the first place must also improve by better understanding their compliance obligations and strengthening their internal legal and compliance procedures. For example, PUBG Battlegrounds failed to label on all three platforms on which it is available. Interestingly, the company publishes information about loot boxes and probability disclosures on its website[95]. The latest post contained the following sentence four times: “Due to legal regulations, [loot boxes] cannot be purchased in Belgium and the Netherlands. Given the two specific countries cited (whose loot box regulations have been highly publicized, but see section 1. 1 above for the exact current legal position), this “legal regulation” must refer to gambling laws. Thus, while the companies that operate “PUBG Battlegrounds” appear to understand and respect their legal obligations, they have not met their industry self-regulatory obligations. These companies were either unaware of the relevant industry self-regulation (which is hard to believe, but the game is one of the most popular games operated by a well-established company, so there should be knowledgeable legal and compliance teams), or they actively chose not to comply with the industry self-regulation (but chose to comply with the Belgian and Dutch laws). If the latter, then it is up to platform providers to better enforce the rules, as well as individual companies that broke the rules by failing to label their games in the first place, to improve by better understanding their compliance obligations and strengthening their internal legal and compliance procedures. For example, PUBG Battlegrounds neglected to affix the labels on all three platforms on which it is available. Interestingly, the company has published information about loot boxes and odds disclosure on its website[95]. The latest post contained the following sentence four times: “Due to legal regulations, [loot boxes] are not available for purchase in Belgium and the Netherlands. Given the two specific countries cited (whose loot box regulations have been highly publicized, but see section 1. 1 above for the exact current legal position), this “legal regulation” must refer to gambling laws. Thus, while the companies operating “PUBG Battlegrounds” appear to understand and respect their legal obligations, they have not met their industry self-regulatory obligations. These companies were either unaware of the relevant industry self-regulation (which is hard to believe, but as the game is one of the most popular games operated by well-established companies, they should have knowledgeable legal and compliance teams) or actively chose not to comply with the industry self-regulation (but chose to comply with the Belgian and Dutch laws). If the latter,

4.4 Toward Better Industry Self-regulation

In the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, and the Sony PlayStation Store, when the label is displayed, it is displayed in a fairly noticeable place. Consumers can see this label without adding additional operations by accessing related product pages. If you search for label texts using "Ctrl+F" or other functions, consumers can easily find labels on the web page. This is a label in the Google Play Store, an additional action (for example, tap or click the small (i) button next to the age evaluation) before consumers display the label. It is in contrast to the difficulty to access. At the Nintendo E Shop, access to labels was more difficult. The label is not automatically displayed on the first web page of the product (therefore cannot search for text at that time), and consumers move to another web page where the label is displayed. You have to click the link. In the Nintendo Switch version of Nintendo E Shop, the label is not displayed in a prominent place. In order for consumers to see the label, they must enter the product page and scroll to the bottom of the page. PEGI rating is actually displayed immediately on the right side of the product page, and when consumers scroll up the product page, they are "fixed" there. Just below the age rating, there is enough space to display the label (and other rating information) in the loot box. Nintendo is a Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, Sony PlayStation Store, and is displayed in a fairly prominent place when the label is displayed. Consumers can see this label without adding additional operations by accessing related product pages. If you search for label texts using "Ctrl+F" or other functions, consumers can easily find labels on the web page. This is a label in the Google Play Store, an additional action (for example, tap or click the small (i) button next to the age evaluation) before consumers display the label. It is in contrast to the difficulty to access. At the Nintendo E Shop, access to labels was more difficult. The label is not automatically displayed on the first web page of the product (therefore cannot search for text at that time), and consumers move to another web page where the label is displayed. You have to click the link. In the Nintendo Switch version of Nintendo E Shop, the label is not displayed in a prominent place. In order for consumers to see the label, they must enter the product page and scroll to the bottom of the page. PEGI rating is actually displayed immediately on the right side of the product page, and when consumers scroll up the product page, they are "fixed" there. Just below the age rating, there is enough space to display the label (and other rating information) in the loot box. Nintendo is displayed in a fairly noticeable place when the label is displayed on the Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, and Sony PlayStion Store. Consumers can see this label without adding additional operations by accessing related product pages. If you search for label texts using "Ctrl+F" or other functions, consumers can easily find labels on the web page. This is a label in the Google Play Store, an additional action (for example, tap or click the small (i) button next to the age evaluation) before consumers display the label. It is in contrast to the difficulty to access. At the Nintendo E Shop, access to labels was more difficult. The label is not automatically displayed on the first web page of the product (therefore cannot search for text at that time), and consumers move to another web page where the label is displayed. You have to click the link. In the Nintendo Switch version of Nintendo E Shop, the label is not displayed in a prominent place. To see the label, you have to enter the product page and scroll to the bottom of the page. The PEGI rating is actually displayed immediately on the right side of the product page, and when consumers scroll up the product page, they are "fixed" there. Just below the age rating, there is enough space to display the label (and other rating information) in the loot box. Nintendo is

Of note, one internal inconsistency was found in the Nintendo eShop. PUZZLE & DRAGONS Nintendo Switch Edition (GungHo Online Entertainment, 2022) was not displayed in the web version of the Nintendo eShop, but was displayed in the Switch version, as shown in Figure 4. We also found some interesting cases where games disclosed the presence of loot boxes through other means. Some companies included disclaimers about the presence of loot boxes in the game description on the product page, and some companies included similar disclaimers in the space usually reserved for copyright or privacy notices. Curiously, some of these companies chose not to label the games as loot boxes (thus making them non-compliant) but instead to highlight the presence of loot boxes. Such additional sources of information do not hinder the consumer experience, but only increase the opportunities for consumers to see information about the presence of loot boxes. Therefore, we encourage other companies to make similar additional disclosures. Companies may also choose to do this in storefronts that do not implement labels or similar features to proactively inform consumers about the presence of loot boxes (e. g., the Apple App Store).

Figure 4.

Figure 4. Two photos showing suboptimal labeling in the Nintendo eShop for Switch. Photo A is at the top of the product detail page. Photo B shows that the labels are not visible unless you scroll to the bottom of the product page. (Screenshots were prohibited in the Nintendo eShop for Switch) © 2023 GungHo Online Entertainment & amp; Nintendo.

5 Conclusion

As described in detail in the result section, PEGI has taken the lead of the store front and the company and taking measures to deal with concerns raised in this survey (such as the r e-label display of the game). A few but popular games, including a loot box, are still not labeled at the major store front. This means that consumers have not yet provided accurate information. According to PEGI/IARC's policy, it is up to the discretion of the publisher to decide whether to put a label on the rated games before the label is introduced. The disadvantage of giving an unreasonable privilege without labeling an old "old" game, for example, consumers misunderstanding the label display status in all cases, and concerns about ant i-competition. It is discussed elsewhere [61 (pp. 20-22)]. Such companies should display them early. In fact, not displaying labels (or equivalent messages that emphasize the existence of a loot box) means that British advertising regulations [96, 97], especially guidance on i n-game purchase advertising [98 (p. 10)], UKIe's sel f-regulation principles and guidance [77], or other regional consumer protection laws, for example, the EU unfair commercial action (or domestic implementation) [41, 61]. As mentioned in the

Data Avalibility Statement

PEGI's answer to Nintendo E Shop is the difficulty of finding the appropriate definition of "i n-game trading including randomized elements" that justifies the warning label [47, CF 48] The implementation of the relevant monetization mechanism, including randomization in a specific game, is more insidious than a mere virtual container with a random reward that can be purchased and opened directly. PEGI determined that a game "Pokemon Quest" does not include the mechanism of monetization that needs to be displayed. However, in this game, players can purchase "premium currency" (that is, virtual currency that can be purchased with the real world money) with the money of the real world, and "Premium Currency" using the "Premium Currency". You can purchase "Energy" and then complete an i n-game quest that can get random rewards. Energy can be purchased with the real world money through additional replacement layers, and ultimately provide random rewards, the second used to complete the quest representing the "Restoration Box". It can be regarded as a type "premium currency". It is difficult to justify the distinction of PEGI, despite the fact that there may have been another level of movement between the money of the real world and the second type of premium currency. In fact, PEGI seems to have previously agreed to the energy mechanism that can be ultimately charged with the real world money. Pegi's answer to the Nintendo E Shop has r e-embraced the difficulty of finding the appropriate definition of "i n-game trading containing randomized elements" that justifies the warning label [. 47, CF. 48]. The implementation of the relevant monetization mechanism, including randomization in a specific game, is more insidious than a mere virtual container with a random reward that can be purchased and opened directly. PEGI determined that a game "Pokemon Quest" does not include the mechanism of monetization that needs to be displayed. However, in this game, players can purchase "premium currency" (that is, virtual currency that can be purchased with the real world money) with the money of the real world, and "Premium Currency" using the "Premium Currency". You can purchase "Energy" and then complete an i n-game quest that can get random rewards. Energy can be purchased with the real world money through additional replacement layers, and ultimately provide random rewards, the second used to complete the quest representing the "Restoration Box". It can be regarded as a type "premium currency". It is difficult to justify the distinction of PEGI, despite the fact that there may have been another level of movement between the money of the real world and the second type of premium currency. In fact, PEGI seems to have previously agreed to the energy mechanism that can be ultimately charged with the real world money. PEGI's answer to Nintendo E Shop is the difficulty of finding the appropriate definition of "i n-game trading including randomized elements" that justifies the warning label [47, CF 48] The implementation of the relevant monetization mechanism, including randomization in a specific game, is more insidious than a mere virtual container with a random reward that can be purchased and opened directly. PEGI determined that a game "Pokemon Quest" does not include the mechanism of monetization that needs to be displayed. However, in this game, players can purchase "premium currency" (that is, virtual currency that can be purchased with the real world money) with the money of the real world, and "Premium Currency" using the "Premium Currency". You can purchase "Energy" and then complete an i n-game quest that can get random rewards. Energy can be purchased with the real world money through additional replacement layers, and ultimately provide random rewards, the second used to complete the quest representing the "Restoration Box". It can be regarded as a type "premium currency". It is difficult to justify the distinction of PEGI, despite the fact that there may have been another level of movement between the money of the real world and the second type of premium currency. In fact, PEGI seems to have previously agreed to the energy mechanism that can be ultimately charged with the real world money.

Positionality Statement

Companies should not be encouraged to implement more elaborate monetization schemes, despite the randomization that was ultimately revealed.

Copyright Notice

The excuses offered on behalf of the Epic Games Store are unsatisfactory. If a storefront is not ready to display accurate age rating information to consumers, it should not be displayed as a platform that has implemented the IARC system, to avoid giving consumers the false impression that the system has been officially implemented and can now be trusted. The only instance where a game was officially displayed on the Epic Games Store may cause further confusion, as it seems to suggest that the system is already in place. The USK has refused to reveal when the Epic Games Store plans to implement the IARC system. As of October 15, 2023, FIFA 23 remains unlabeled, eight months after the study was conducted. In addition, the popular game "Honkai: Star Rail" (miHoYo, 2023), which was released in April 2023 after the investigation was conducted and contains loot boxes, remained misleadingly unlabeled on the Epic Games Store as of October 14, 2023 (despite being legitimately labeled on the Google Play Store). These omissions suggest that properly implementing the IARC age rating system is not a priority for the Epic Games Store. The IARC website should be amended and the Epic Games Store should be removed from participating storefronts until the IARC system is officially implemented.

Acknowledgments

The methodological decision to include “viewable but no longer available for purchase” games in the sample was made because these product pages continued to provide information. Although these games were no longer available for purchase, at least some of them remained available for download by consumers who had previously purchased them. The decision to re-download a game may also be influenced by the label, as was the original purchase decision (this was the “legislative intent” that introduced the labels in the first place [30, 31]). In fact, some “viewable but no longer available for purchase” games were counted as correctly labeled and in compliance. Thus, removing such games from the calculation may increase or decrease compliance. In any case, updating the labels should be done, as it incurs minimal costs, given how few games actually contain loot boxes on these platforms. If a game or company is truly out of action and can no longer maintain its product page as PEGI suggests, it should be removed from the storefront entirely, so as not to leave any room for misleading consumers.

Finally, the USK refused to answer my questions about what it plans to do to improve compliance and provide better consumer protection, even though the situation in the Google Play Store and the Epic Games Store is objectively unsatisfactory, with many games containing loot boxes still unlabeled and without consumer or parental warnings.[61] This suggests that the USK may not see the loot box issue as a priority. A unique feature regarding the German self-regulatory regime for video game age ratings is that it is strictly a form of “co-regulation” (broader regulatory objectives are set by law, but in practice are carried out by partial discretionary industry self-regulation) and not pure industry self-regulation (all relevant matters are left to the sole discretion of the industry self-regulatory body or the industry as a whole). For example, recent legal changes that listed “in-game purchases” and “gambling-like mechanics” as risks to be addressed for adolescents have led the USK to introduce its own loot box presence warning labels for physically released games from 1 January 2023 [8, 100]. Therefore, if deemed appropriate, the German legislator should consider asking the USK to go further with regard to digitally released games.

Samples were biased in the past or known games that contained a loot box. Most of these games are still very popular in the past and now, and have been strictly monitored by sel f-regulated agencies and other stakeholders of age rating. In fact, most of the samples showed the existence of a loot box elsewhere, so related companies needed to apply the same label to other stores. Therefore, the compliance rate of this sample is likely to be higher than the overall true value. This is similar to other pre-research [2-4, 61], which investigated compliance issues related to loot boxes in popular games with high box office revenue. sample was biased in the past or known games that contained a loot box. Most of these games are still very popular in the past and now, and have been strictly monitored by sel f-regulated agencies and other stakeholders of age rating. In fact, most of the samples showed the existence of a loot box elsewhere, so related companies needed to apply the same label to other stores. Therefore, the compliance rate of this sample is likely to be higher than the overall true value. This is similar to other pre-research [2-4, 61], which investigated compliance issues related to loot boxes in popular games with high box office revenue. Samples were biased in the past or known games that contained a loot box. Most of these games are still very popular in the past and now, and have been strictly monitored by sel f-regulated agencies and other stakeholders of age rating. In fact, most of the samples showed the existence of a loot box elsewhere, so related companies needed to apply the same label to other stores. Therefore, the compliance rate of this sample is likely to be higher than the overall true value. This is similar to other pre-research [2-4, 61], which investigated compliance issues related to loot boxes in popular games with high box office revenue.

References

To create PEG I-based information, the regional settings were set in the UK, which is as much as possible. This means that only the compliance with labels in the PEGI area was evaluated. In North America (that is, ESRB area) and other areas, the compliance status and implementation status and implementation status (although there is probably no significant difference) (considering that IARC is supposed to be a global application). For example, a game "Mobile Suit Gundam Battle Operation 2" (Bandai Namco Entertainment, 2018) did not display Pegi in the UK Sony PlayStation Store, but there was a display of ESRB in the US Sony PlayStation Store. In my recent research [61], the physical version of "Mobile Suit Gundam Battle Operation 2" had the same disproportionate labels (that is, the ESRB label was affixed, The label by PEGI was not affixed). This is not a digital age rating created through IARC, despite the strictly sold digital version of Sony's PlayStation Store, but the age rating of the game that was actually physically released. It suggests that it was displayed. These digital steering front seems to provide the age rating of digital purchases by combining the PEGI/ESRB system for physically released games, and the IARC system for digital games. If PEGI/ESRB rating is available in a physical version, it is highly likely that the rating was displayed instead of the newly generated IARC rating. Therefore, the results of this survey showed that the IARC system (according to PEGI, only Nintendo Switch games added to this sample) were not implemented well, were not complied, and did not implement. It may also reflect how PEGI and ESRB did not add labels even after the games have a regular label. I could not independently confirm that each game at each store front displays the conventional PEGI/ESRB rating or the newly generated IARC rating.

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

This document is a class action complaint filed against Epic Games, Inc. alleging predatory practices related to in-game purchases in Fortnite Save the. lawsuit was premised on the content of Google's app listings, the court found the second prong to be satisfied. Lastly, Coffee and Montanez failed to. There has been a ton of class-action activity related to loot boxes in the past 12 months, not to mention increased regulatory interest.

Play

accepted