Austria Refuses to Categorize Loot Boxes as Gambling

A few weeks after Poland proposed categorizing video game loot boxes as gambling, Austria’s Supreme Court rejected a player’s attempt to recuperate their losses, saying that such products do not constitute gambling.

Loot Boxes Still in the Spotlight

Loot boxes have been one of the hot topics of the video gaming and gambling industries for a while now, meeting mixed responses from audiences and lawmakers alike. While some enjoy such products, many fear that their similarities to gambling are having a negative impact on children.

For context, loot boxes are a video game purchase that awards various in-game items, ranging from purely cosmetic awards to gameplay-altering tools and new characters. While the mechanic has become a popular monetization tool, its random element has irked many a video game player.

In addition to sometimes feeling unfair, such mechanics could potentially hurt impressionable younger people, instilling certain gambling habits from a young age, some studies argue.

Others, however, have rejected this notion, saying that there are several key differences between loot boxes and gambling, including the fact that all boxes contain loot and that the digital assets usually lack any real-world value, are entirely digital, and usually cannot be traded or transferred to another player.  

Whatever the case, a recent court decision in Austria affirmed that the country does not consider loot boxes as gambling, at least for now.

The Player Could Not Prove the Game Constituted Gambling

The ruling in question relates to a plaintiff who spent thousands of euros to purchase loot boxes for a soccer-themed game. According to the complaint, they purchased loot boxes worth approximately EUR 20K between October 2017 and October 2021.

The plaintiff asserted that the boxes constituted illegal gambling and sought to reclaim their money.

However, under Austrian law, loot boxes cannot be evaluated in isolation from the game they are a part of. As a result, the court took a look at the entire game and determined that the element of skill required to achieve success was not necessarily tied to loot box purchases and that there was a “rational expectation of winning.”

As a result, the court determined that the player had failed to prove that the game and its elements constituted gambling since outcomes didn’t rely entirely or mostly on chance.

Additionally, the Austrian court mentioned one of the usual arguments against classifying loot boxes as gambling, which is the digital-only nature of their content and the inability to transfer or sell these items to another person.