Loot Boxes in Video Games: Between Fun and Gambling for Minors?

Video games are no longer simply products that players purchase once and enjoy without further costs. Many now operate through ongoing transactions, virtual currencies and randomised rewards that encourage players to spend money throughout the gaming experience. One of the most controversial examples is the loot box: a virtual container that offers an unknown reward in exchange for money or in-game currency.

Loot boxes can contain cosmetic items, equipment or characters that affect gameplay. In football games, for example, players may purchase packs containing randomly selected footballers, hoping to obtain a particularly valuable or powerful card. The appeal lies partly in the uncertainty of the outcome, but that same uncertainty raises legal questions when players repeatedly pay for the possibility of obtaining a desirable reward.

The central issue is not simply whether loot boxes resemble gambling. It is whether their characteristics satisfy the legal definition of gambling in a particular jurisdiction, and whether a system that falls outside that definition may nevertheless breach consumer protection rules or require additional safeguards for children.

Why are loot boxes not always considered gambling?

The legal classification of loot boxes depends on the legislation applicable in each country. Gambling laws commonly examine factors such as the payment or stake involved, the random nature of the outcome and the possibility of winning a prize with economic value. However, these requirements are not identical across jurisdictions, and the fact that an item is virtual does not automatically mean it has no economic significance.

In Spain, Law 13/2011 of 27 May on the Regulation of Gambling establishes the legal framework for gambling activities within its scope. The relevant question is whether a particular loot-box system satisfies the statutory requirements, rather than whether it merely resembles a game of chance. The Spanish Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling has specifically examined loot boxes and their relationship with gambling, recognising the regulatory uncertainty surrounding these mechanisms.

One important consideration is whether rewards can be exchanged or traded for economic value. A cosmetic item that remains confined to a game and cannot legitimately be converted into money presents a different legal question from an item that can be traded in a marketplace with real-world economic consequences. Nevertheless, transferability is not the only relevant factor, and its precise legal significance depends on the applicable national legislation.

It would therefore be too broad to conclude that loot boxes are categorically excluded from gambling regulation in Spain simply because their rewards are virtual. A more accurate conclusion is that many conventional loot-box systems have not been treated as gambling under the existing framework, but their classification requires an examination of their specific design and the applicable legal criteria.

Even when a loot box does not qualify as gambling, it may still be subject to rules governing misleading commercial practices, price transparency, contractual information and the protection of minors. The distinction between gambling regulation and consumer protection is essential to understanding the legal debate.

Spain: consumer protection and the proposed protection of minors

Spain has addressed loot boxes through both regulatory discussion and broader initiatives to improve children's safety in digital environments. In 2021, the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling launched a public consultation on random reward mechanisms, examining their characteristics, their relationship with gambling and possible regulatory approaches. The consultation itself did not introduce a new legal prohibition, but it demonstrated that the issue had attracted the attention of the relevant authorities.

The Spanish Government subsequently included loot boxes in its proposed legislation on the protection of minors in digital environments. In March 2025, the Council of Ministers approved the draft Organic Law for the Protection of Minors in Digital Environments for submission to Parliament. The initiative included specific provisions addressing random reward mechanisms in video games.

The important legal distinction is between a proposal and an enacted law. The draft's provisions should not be presented as an existing blanket prohibition unless their entry into force and final wording have been verified. For an article discussing the current law, the legislative status must be checked against the official parliamentary record and the Boletín Oficial del Estado.

Regardless of the precise legislative outcome, the policy concern is clear: minors may have difficulty understanding probabilities, recognising the cumulative cost of repeated purchases or resisting carefully designed prompts to spend money. Virtual currencies can make these costs less transparent because the relationship between the amount paid and the value spent inside the game is not always immediately obvious.

Consumer protection law can address some of these problems without requiring every loot box to be classified as gambling. Requirements concerning clear pricing, accurate information and unfair commercial practices are particularly relevant when games encourage repeated purchases or target young players. The European Commission has already reminded the video game industry that paid randomised content must comply with applicable EU consumer protection rules, including requirements relating to price information and commercial practices directed at children.

Austria and the Netherlands: why the details matter

The European experience shows that the legal classification of loot boxes can differ considerably between countries, even when the underlying game is the same.

In Austria, litigation concerning FIFA Ultimate Team has produced different outcomes in lower courts. One case before the Hermagor District Court in 2023 treated the packs as gambling under Austrian law, taking account of the possibility that the virtual items could have economic value. Later proceedings, including a decision by the Vienna Higher Regional Court in 2024, adopted a different approach to the legal classification. These cases illustrate the difficulties of applying national gambling legislation to virtual items, although individual rulings should not be treated as a single, definitive rule for every loot-box system.

The Netherlands provides another important example. In 2022, the Dutch Council of State, the country's highest general administrative court, ruled that the gambling authority could not impose a penalty on Electronic Arts in relation to FIFA Ultimate Team packs. The court concluded that the packs were not a separate game of chance requiring a gambling licence under the circumstances of that case. The packs were integrated into the wider game, and the ability to trade items within the game's virtual transfer market did not, by itself, make the system unlawful gambling.

This outcome is important because it demonstrates why claims that the Netherlands simply banned loot boxes in games such as FIFA, Dota 2, Rocket League and PUBG can be misleading. Regulatory positions and litigation have evolved, and the legal treatment of one game's mechanics does not automatically determine the status of another.

The wider lesson is that the existence of chance and the presence of a virtual marketplace are not always sufficient, on their own, to establish that a product constitutes gambling. Courts must apply the relevant statutory definition to the structure and operation of the particular system.

Belgium and the United Kingdom: different regulatory approaches

Belgium adopted a stricter position in 2018, when its Gaming Commission concluded that certain paid loot boxes fell within the country's gambling legislation. Its assessment focused on the combination of payment, chance and prizes with economic significance. The Belgian approach led to changes in the availability or operation of loot-box mechanics in some games, although the practical consequences have differed between titles and publishers.

The United Kingdom has generally taken a different approach. Under its existing gambling framework, loot boxes do not automatically qualify as gambling where the items obtained cannot be converted into money or traded for prizes of money or money's worth outside the game. However, the position is not that every loot box is necessarily lawful or harmless. Consumer protection rules and the government's policy work on loot boxes remain relevant, particularly where children may be exposed to excessive spending or gambling-like design.

These examples demonstrate that there is no single European rule under which every loot box is either lawful or prohibited. National gambling definitions, the characteristics of the virtual items, the possibility of transferring them and the surrounding commercial practices can all affect the analysis.

The European Union: a growing focus on consumer protection

At EU level, the debate has increasingly focused on the protection of consumers, particularly children, rather than relying exclusively on gambling legislation.

In its resolution of 18 January 2023 on consumer protection in online video games, the European Parliament called for clearer information about in-game purchases, greater transparency concerning virtual currencies and stronger safeguards against manipulative commercial practices. It also invited the European Commission to examine whether the existing consumer protection framework was sufficient or whether further legislation was needed.

The Commission has also emphasised that paid randomised content must comply with EU consumer law. This includes requirements to disclose relevant price and product information and prohibitions on directly exhorting children to buy paid add-ons. These rules are significant because a game can raise consumer protection concerns even if its loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling.

The debate continued in 2025, when the European Parliament again addressed the risks posed by randomised gaming features and other potentially harmful practices affecting minors. Its proposals reflected growing concern about the way in which commercial design, microtransactions and virtual currencies can influence children's behaviour. However, a parliamentary resolution or policy recommendation should not be confused with a binding EU-wide prohibition. 

The distinction matters for the future of digital regulation. EU consumer law already provides tools to challenge certain unfair practices, but it does not create a universal rule that every paid loot box is gambling. A common approach would need to clarify how existing rules apply, identify any remaining gaps and determine whether additional restrictions are justified.

Beyond legality: chance, spending and the protection of minors

The legal classification of loot boxes does not resolve the ethical questions surrounding them. Their design can encourage players to make repeated purchases in the hope of receiving a rare item, while limited-time offers, near-miss experiences and virtual currencies may make spending feel less significant than it is in real money.

These mechanisms can be especially concerning for minors, who may have less experience managing money and evaluating probabilities. The European Parliament's work on online video games has highlighted the risks of unwanted or uncontrolled purchases and the need for effective parental controls and clearer information for families.

At the same time, not every random reward should be treated as inherently harmful. Some loot boxes can be earned through gameplay without additional payment, and games differ considerably in how they present rewards, communicate probabilities and encourage spending. Regulation therefore needs to consider the actual mechanics of a product rather than treating every form of randomised content as identical.

In my view, the most useful legal question is not simply whether loot boxes should be labelled as gambling, but whether players can make informed decisions and whether the system takes sufficient account of the vulnerabilities of children. Clear disclosure of odds and prices, meaningful spending controls, restrictions on manipulative practices and effective age-appropriate safeguards can all contribute to that objective. Where those measures are insufficient, more restrictive rules may be justified.

Conclusion

Loot boxes sit at the intersection of gambling regulation, consumer protection and digital rights. Their random nature creates similarities with games of chance, but their legal classification depends on the applicable legislation and the specific characteristics of the product. Spain and other European countries have approached the issue differently, demonstrating the limitations of assuming that virtual rewards automatically fall outside gambling law or that all loot boxes should be treated in the same way.

The EU has already taken steps to strengthen consumer protection in online games, while Spain has pursued legislative measures specifically addressing the protection of minors in digital environments. The remaining challenge is to ensure that the rules provide meaningful protection without relying on imprecise definitions or treating non-binding proposals as existing law.

Ultimately, a sound regulatory framework should make the costs and risks of in-game purchases understandable, prevent unfair commercial practices and provide stronger safeguards for children. The objective is not to eliminate the enjoyment of video games, but to ensure that the commercial systems built around them respect the rights and interests of the people who play them.