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

Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a longitudinal study on the implementation process

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao, Leon Y.

    (IT University of Copenhagen)

  • Lund, Mie

Abstract

Loot boxes in video games can be purchased with real-world money in exchange for random rewards. Stakeholders are concerned about loot boxes’ similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g., overspending money and developing gambling problems). The previous Conservative UK Government decided to first try relying on industry self-regulation to address the issue, rather than to impose legislation. These self-regulations have since been published by the industry trade body, Ukie (UK Interactive Entertainment). Responding to many stakeholders’ desire for a transparent and independent assessment of their implementation, we assessed companies’ compliance with three empirically testable measures and also whether the rules were actively enforced. The 100 highest-grossing iPhone games were longitudinally examined both prior to the self-regulations coming into effect on 18 July 2024 (i.e., between January and June 2024) and after to check for potential improvement (i.e., between July and December 2024). Disappointingly, widespread non-compliance and non-enforcement were observed. Amongst games with loot boxes, none (0.0%) sought to obtain explicit parental consent prior to enabling loot box purchasing by under-18s. Only 23.5% disclosed loot box presence, and the few disclosures were all visually obscured and difficult to access. A mere 8.6% consistently disclosed the probabilities of obtaining different rewards for all loot boxes found. The rules were not enforced, contrary to Ukie’s promise: all of the games that were non-compliant before the self-regulations came into effect remained non-compliant many months later, despite Ukie and the Apple App Store having been provided with evidence of the contraventions and put on notice to delist those games if remedial actions were not forthcoming. Platforms (e.g., app stores), the advertising regulator, and the consumer protection regulators must better enforce pre-existing rules to ensure adequate consumer protection as already promised. Video games and loot boxes are no longer novel; laws that apply to all industries must also be enforced against this one. Governments are advised against relying on industry self-regulation, especially after repeated demonstrations of its many failings. Stricter legal regulation of loot boxes should be adopted. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3KNYB (date of in-principle acceptance: 25 March 2024).

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao, Leon Y. & Lund, Mie, 2025. "Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a longitudinal study on the implementation process," OSF Preprints xmwgy, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:xmwgy
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xmwgy
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/677e7f7504c746b503fb06c4/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/xmwgy?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
    2. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer, 2018. "Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 530-532, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiao, Leon Y., 2024. "Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories," OSF Preprints s92j3, Center for Open Science.
    2. McCaffrey, Matthew, 2019. "The macro problem of microtransactions: The self-regulatory challenges of video game loot boxes," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 483-495.
    3. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Ningyuan Chen & Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton & Xiao Lei, 2021. "Loot Box Pricing and Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4809-4825, August.
    5. Sharon Lawn & Candice Oster & Ben Riley & David Smith & Michael Baigent & Mubarak Rahamathulla, 2020. "A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Imam Salehudin & Frank Alpert, 2024. "Perceived aggressive monetization: why some mobile gamers won’t spend any money on in-app purchases," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1997-2019, September.
    7. Mattinen, Topias & Macey, Joseph & Hamari, Juho, 2023. "A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena," OSF Preprints s9xqt, Center for Open Science.
    8. Xiao, Leon Y., 2020. "Regulating Loot Boxes as Gambling? Perspectives from Psychology, Behavioural Economics and Ludology," LawArXiv cdr69, Center for Open Science.
    9. Anthony King & Gloria Wong-Padoongpatt, 2022. "Do Gamers Play for Money? A Moderated Mediation of Gaming Motives, Relative Deprivation, and Upward Mobility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-21, November.
    10. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    11. Paul Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2021. "Contentious Issues and Future Directions in Adolescent Gambling Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.
    12. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
    13. Zhaoxia Deng & Zhijie Chen, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Balancing Creative Expression and Societal Well-being: A Comprehensive Regulatory Framework for the Chinese Video Game Industry," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10384-10411, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:xmwgy. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.