Regulation of Video Gaming Loot Boxes: Lessons for South Africa from

To optimise income, video game developers incorporate microtransactions into their games. One such microtransaction is a loot box. This is a container that a gamer in certain instances can win or purchase to take a chance on the unknown contents in the hope of obtaining an item that may be useful in the progression of the game. In the case of tradable loot boxes, these items won can also be traded or sold for cash either during the game or on a thirdparty marketplace. Research has shown that loot boxes are potentially harmful to minors and that there is possibly a link between loot boxes and problem gambling. The labelling of the games seems inadequate as it does not always warn gamers and/or parents of the potentially harmful content. It has also been argued that these loot boxes are an example of the convergence between gambling and gaming in that gambling and gambling-like opportunities are becoming more prevalent in video games. Notwithstanding existing research, the industry has not been forthcoming in addressing these problems. There are some exceptions where the developers amended their games after the gaming community reacted negatively to the introduction of loot boxes or when forced to do so by regulations or other third-party service providers. The call for self-regulation by the industry to adopt a set of ethical guidelines to address these concerns has not yielded the desired results. As a result of the lacklustre actions of the industry, some jurisdictions have addressed these problems through regulation. The mechanisms used by these jurisdictions differ, ranging from the banning of loot boxes to a mere acknowledgement of the potential problems without taking any action. Even where (tradable) loot boxes fall within the legal definition of gambling in national legislation, enforcement has been inconsistent as some argue that using gambling regulatory frameworks to protect vulnerable groups is inappropriate. After discussing these debates and global developments, the article concludes with a discussion of the current South African legal situation vis-à-vis loot boxes with specific reference to the constitutional and international law imperatives, the Film and Publications Board classifications, the consumer protection legislation, and the gambling regulatory framework. It finally provides suggestions for legal changes that may be feasible considering the lessons learnt from abroad.


Introduction
Traditionally, video games promise an entertainment value thatapart from the purchase priceused to be cost-free no matter how often a player decided to play. Both digital platforms and the growing interconnectivity of video games provide publishers with additional ways of generating revenue that are oftentimes in contrast to free entertainment. 1 As a result of ever-changing technology and the growing financial need to meet the rising costs of developing new high-quality and exciting video games, 2 game developers introduce additional income streams into existing games through add-ons 3 and/or microtransactions such as loot boxes. 4 The reaction to some of these microtransactions, specifically loot boxes, has been mixed and somewhat controversial. As is discussed hereunder, criticisms include condemnations of such exploitative practices without the developers giving clear information about what the games contain or labelling the games helpfully, pointing out the possible links to problem gambling that could harm minors.
As legal research on the topic in South Africa is scant, 5 this article first discusses loot boxes broadly within the context of existing global research,

The market and business model
The annual global video game market was valued in the region at $115 billion in 2018 7 and is predicted to be $230 billion by 2022. 8 In South Africa it is estimated to be worth about R8 billion in 2023. 9 The exact size of the microtransactions in these video games, specifically the loot box market, both globally and in South Africa, is unknown, as game companies do not release data on the spending on loot boxes. 10 It was projected that loot box revenue globally was about $30 billion in 2018 11 and estimated to be $50 billion in 2022. 12 About 60% of the best-selling video games include loot boxes. 13 It is estimated that microtransactions make up between 34% and 56% of the profits of most prominent video game developers. 14 If these concept to the general public; parents of video game players, and even the players themselves, may have limited information on how loot boxes function and maladapted cognitive frameworks which serve to promote misunderstanding of probabilities" (Macey et al 2022 J Behav Addict 263). 6 Jiow and Lim 2021 Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association 91. 7 McCaffrey 2019 Business Horizons 483. 8 Zendle and Cairns 2018 Plos ONE 9. 9 PWC 2022 https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/entertainment-and-media-outlook- .pdf with reference to the 2023 market estimate. Their estimate for the South African video games and esports market in 2026 is more than R10 billion. Bosch Assessing Video Gaming Events 1 estimated R5 billion in 2021. 10 Xiao 2021 IELR 32-33; Honer 2021 IELR 65. 11 Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 1 estimates that the amount will rise to $50 billion in 2022. Also see Jones 2020 Chapman L Rev 247. 12 Derrington, Starr and Kelley 2021 JGI 313-314. 13 Rockloff et al 2021 J Behav Addict 35; Li 2022 Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 1284. estimations are correct, this would mean that South Africans are spending billions of rands annually on microtransactions. Research shows that about 78% of all gamers in the UK have purchased loot boxes, 15 including around 31% of children between 11 and 16 years of age. 16 The data for South African gamers and minors that purchase loot boxes are not available but have been described as "significant". 17 The Film and Publications Board and UNISA Impact Research Report in 2015 noted that playing video games is an important part of the entertainment of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds in South Africa between the ages of 7 and 17. 18 What is accepted, though, is that the market is rapidly increasing with the growth in the popularity of smartphones. 19 As mentioned above, to remain competitive the business models of game developers utilise additional strategies to generate continuous income streams from their games through microtransactions. 20 These microtransactions inter alia enable players to purchase and sell, with real currency, either directly or via virtual game currency, additional or premium content, including virtual items. 21 Loot boxes are a type of 4 noted that of the 82 bestselling games in the NSW jurisdiction in Australia, 62% had loot boxes. 15 Li, Mills and Nower 2019 Addictive Behaviors 27. 16 Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport Committee Immersive and Addictive Technologies 29; Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 2; Von Meduna et al 2020 Technology in Society 8. 17 Lohse 2020 IJSSER 22. 18 Their research showed that children in South Africa between 7 and 9 years of age play games like Candy Crush Sage, Need for Speed and Memory, all with an age restriction of 16. Similarly, children between 10 and 15 years of age play games with an age restriction of 18 such as Grand Theft Auto, God of War and Call of Duty (FPB and UNISA Impact Research Report 30). 19 Castillo 2019 Santa Clara L Rev 166; Drummond and Sauer 2018 Nat Hum Behav 2; Zendle, Meyer and Ballou 2020 Plos ONE 11; Liu 2019 Wash Int LJ 797; Li 2022 Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 1287. In South Africa the FPB Research Report para 1 found that, at the time, 40% of video games are purchased on mobile phones, either from the mobile operator or trusted international websites.  22 This article is limited to loot boxes. Although other microtransactions may raise similar concerns, they are excluded from this discussion.

What is a loot box?
What is a loot box? It takes the form of a virtual mystery container 23 that holds randomised in-game items that a gamer can receive either by naturally progressing through the video game 24 or by purchasing it using real currency 25 for the opportunity to open the loot boxtaking a chance on its unknown contents. 26 Not all video games have loot boxes 27 and not all Rev 542; Steinmetz et al 2022 J Gambl Stud 785); in-app purchases with downloadable content, expansion packs and season passes to restricted content (Mistry 2018 Rutgers U L Rev 547, 549; Tan 2019 Galactica 133); "blind boxes" that can be purchased physically and "play to earn" blockchain-based games (Petrovskaya, Deterding and Zendle "Prevalence and Salience of Problematic Microtransactions" 1; Xiao 2022 GLR 1-14 24 Zendle et al 2020 CHB 182 refers to Star Wars: Battlefront II where loot boxes can be earned through play only. 25 This can also include using in-game currency that can be cashed into real currency. Nielsen and Grabarczyk 2019 ToDIGRA 198 identifies four ways in which digital games relate to real currency through randomised rewards: one, those not for sale or purchase; two, those that can only be sold but not purchased; three, those that can only be purchased but not sold and lastly, those that can be sold and purchased functionally equivalent to gambling. As an example, Counter Strike: Global Offensive's loot boxes could at that time be purchased with real currency (Zendle et al 2020 CHB 182-183). Some loot boxes in a game need a key to open them, but this key must be purchased with real currency (Zendle et al 2020 CHB 182-183 with reference to Star Trek Online). 26 Lui, Thompson  E VAN DER WESTHUIZEN & M CARNELLEY PER / PELJ 2023(26) 6 loot boxes are the same. 28 Loot boxes are available in various popular games 29 and vary in access and costs, transparency, content and value. 30 In some games, progression is impossible without purchasing loot boxes. 31 The loot box contents may be cosmetic items 32 with no in-game advantages over other players, 33 or the box can contain items that provide in-game advantages. 34 These advantages can take the form of more potent weapons, better versions of existing characters or even new characters. 35 In some games, items are available exclusively in loot boxes and cannot be obtained merely by progressing through the game. 36 Loot boxes can include items that can be used only in the game itself and cannot be sold or traded with others for different items (non-tradable loot boxes), or they can be tradable with other game players in the game itself or on secondary markets created for this purpose (tradable loot boxes).  31 Lischer et al 2022 IJERPH 5 refers to the game Diablo Immortal where it is impossible to proceed beyond a specific stage without buying loot boxes. 32 These cosmetic items are also called skins (Abarbanel 2018 GLR 231; Schwiddessen and Karius 2018 IELR 18). The rarest skin called Dragon Love was sold for $61 000 (Jones 2020 Chapman L Rev 269). 33 Even though players attach their own value to these items, they do not provide ingame advantages (Hong 2019 W St U L Rev 74; Cermak 2020 MSU ILR 275). Cosmetic items are usually unproblematic because these items do not alter the way the game progresses, but only how the characters, characters' clothing, or weapons look (Cermak 2020 MSU ILR 275; Moshirnia 2018 MJLST 90; Schwiddessen and Karius 2018 IELR 18-19;Nielsen and Grabarczyk 2019 ToDIGRA 195-196 Items in loot boxes vary in rarity, 38 and the rarer the item, the less likely that it will be gained in a loot box. 39 Advertising of loot boxes is often engineered to highlight the benefits and rarity of the possible item in the loot box, 40 encouraging the gamer to purchase more loot boxes. 41 However, the rarity of items or the odds of winning the item (also called the drop rate) is subjectively pre-determined by game developers. Although randomly distributed, these odds are generally not available to gamers. 42

The controversy: lack of information, targeting of minors and possibly gambling
The controversy over loot boxes first came from within the gaming community and not from outside interest groups. 43 Although gamers have traditionally accepted add-ons to existing games, 44 some regard loot boxes as unfair gameplay and "predatory monetisation" schemes. 45  The best example of a community-driven player reaction against developers' perceived exploitive revenue-generation options by introducing loot boxes took place via social media and online forums, 49 in a backlash against Electronic Arts (EA), the developers of Star Wars Battlefront II. 50 As a result of the fallout and subsequent removal of the loot boxes, EA suffered between $1.4 and $2 billion loss in stock value and long-term damage to its brand. 51 More broadly, the EA saga resulted in the first call for the regulation of the industry and a campaign for loot boxes to be categorised and regulated as gambling. 52 There are a few concerns about loot boxes. The first concern is the lack of available information and inadequate or incorrect labelling about the loot boxes in the game. It has been argued that with some loot boxes, gamers 47 Macey and Bujić "Talk of the Town" 217. Some players admitted to frustration when the random reward mechanisms such as loot boxes interfere with gameplay, especially where the use of real-life currency is the trigger condition (Yin and Xiao "Reward for Luck" 14). 48 Boric and Strauss 2022 Journal of Data Intelligence 208 note that the motivations for paying for loot boxes include "socialization, to continue playing, to unlock content, or to advance in the game, and due to a special offer, a good price/value for money, and convenience". Close and Lloyd Lifting the Lid on Loot-Boxes 2 found that the main reason gamers purchase loot boxes is the fear of missing out. Cai, Cebollada and Cortiñas 2022 Plos One 21 argue that players "purchase functional-based goods, probability-based goods, and ornamental-based goods for different motives and through the different behavioural processes". Functional-based goods are purchased for the flow experience, probability-based goods as a compromise for purchase restrictions, and ornamental goods for intrinsic motivations and exposure in the virtual world (Cai, Cebollada and Cortiñas 2022 Plos One 21). Puiras et al 2022 J Gambl Stud 1 further include "enjoyment, the chance to win, boredom, and charitable intentions" as reasons for purchasing loot boxes. He continues that the reasons gamers refrain from purchasing loot boxes include "negative consequences, gambling concerns, disinterest, finances, and accessibility" (Puiras et al 2022 J Gambl Stud 1 are exploited 53 by their distinct disadvantage due to the lack of information about the prizes they can win and the odds of winning these prizes, combined with a lack of sufficient remedies against developers for perceived unfair practices. 54 This creates a trust problem. 55 With unavailable loot box data, questions have been raised about the ethics of these game companies' practices in that no independent empirical research can be conducted to determine the fairness or adverse effects of a particular game. 56 The second and third concerns surrounding loot boxes relate to the social implications of the purchasing of loot boxes by minors, 57  Azin 2020 BC L Rev 1585-1587; Jones 2020 Chapman L Rev 251. Cerulli-Harms et al Loot Boxes in Online Games 29 argues that the "(k)nown developmental risk factors for children and adolescents also make them particularly vulnerable in the marketplace". Younger children cannot assess the true cost of a product; do not understand risk; have impulse control problems and are susceptible to the development of "socially disordered behaviours in response to certain stimuli" . The concerns about minors having uncontrolled exposure to inappropriate material including gambling are well known and include desensitisation, and the inability to cope with the detrimental psychological consequences. These are not repeated herein. See inter alia FPB Convergence Survey Report 2.1.3.
Gambling is considered to be peripheral to gaming (playing games). 64 Gaming is considered harmless and lawful but gambling is not and is regulated through legislation according to the public policy of each jurisdiction. 65 Loot boxes in video games touch on another debate namely that some video games have moved from mere gaming into the realm of gambling. 66 It is argued that some loot boxes are an example of this complex 67 convergence of gaming and gambling over the past few years, with gambling mechanisms based purely on chance being incorporated into video games. 68 There are two elements to the discussion of loot boxes and gambling: the first is that they may lead to problem gambling and the second that they may be legally regarded as gambling in certain jurisdictions and should be regulated within the national legislation. 69 Regarding problem gambling, numerous studies, starting with Drummond and Sauer in 2018, have found that "loot boxes share important structural and psychological similarities with gambling". 70 This configuration does not occur by accident. 71 The Australian Senate Committee Gaming Micro-Transactions notes that loot boxes share four mechanisms with gambling. 72 First, both include variable ratio reinforcement schedules, also called manipulative conditioning. 73  [The] desired behavior can be 'reinforced' in a subject through a gradual process of incrementally 'rewarding' behaviours which constitute correct steps towards the formation of that certain desired behaviour. 74 The chance-based nature of loot boxes, holding out the possibility of the gamer's obtaining rare and valuable items, creates psychological triggers similar to gambling, even if the reward is not financial. 75 Secondly, the game-play experience of gambling and loot boxes is similar. Most loot boxes have a strong gambling tone, look and feel, 76 as they are presented in the form of traditional gambling games such as mechanisms resembling slot machine visuals, sounds and lights. 77 It has been argued that this sensory feedback of the animations induces the psychological thrill of anticipation and winning, 78 and instils a gambling mindset in gamers. 79 In addition, research shows that reflecting near-misses specifically "lead to cognitive distortions whereby the player believes they are more likely to win in the future, 80 abusing the irrational biases of gamblers to make irrational decisions to 'chase losses'". 81 Limited offers also create a sense of urgency to purchase. 82 Thirdly, both loot boxes and gambling include mechanisms 74 Xiao 2021 IELR 30.  Adam, Roethke and Benlian 2022 Electronic Markets 984 "demonstrate that platform providers can profit from offering certain (vs. uncertain) rewards in loot box menus. Moreover, this effect increases when participants previously experienced a loss and decrease when they perceive to have more control over the result". Xiao 2021 IELR 30-31 argues that apart from the near-miss concept, additional irrational biases of gamers are exploited through "entrapment", where a player continues to spend resources to justify previous unsuccessful attempts; and the "gambler's fallacy" that the more they play, the better the odds of winning become. Some players spend huge amounts of money to purchase loot boxes (Jones 2020 Chapman L Rev 255). 82 Azin 2020 BC L Rev 1589. In June 2021 EA changed the loot box mechanics in their FIFA games by allowing players to preview the contents of a loot box for 24 hours before purchasing. Thereafter a new preview pack can be viewed. Lemmens notes that this scheme increases transparency and reduces the gambling element but creates artificial scarcity with players fearing that they will miss out on time-limited offers (Lemmens 2022 Telematics and Informatics Reports 7). to encourage continued spending. 83 The presence of in-game currency and the ability to turn the contents of loot boxes into cash strengthen the link between loot boxes and problem gambling. 84 The (Belgium) Gaming Commission Research Report on Loot Boxes lists several ways gamers are lured into playing with real currency: the games create an emotional profit expectation and turn the opening of loot boxes into an online social activity. 85 The games create the illusion of a game of skill and fuse fiction and reality by referencing celebrities or cult items. 86 The games introduce a personal currency system and easy payment methods but combine these with an unfathomable data policy and many types of loot boxes that do not necessarily add value to the game. 87 Fourthly, gambling and loot boxes are constantly available, encouraging continuous play with an "endless cycle" of new loot boxes being released. 88 Apart from players describing these features as addictive, 89 independent research has found a link between loot boxes and problem gambling in both 83 Xiao 2021 IELR 30-31. Also see Nielsen and Grabarczyk 2019 ToDRIGA 183-185, that highlights the expectation of winning, near misses, losses disguised as wins, cognitive entrapment, the illusion of control and chasing as factors contributing to the culture of gambling. 84 Zendle et al CHB 188. "However, contrary to predictions, the more money an individual made selling loot box items, the weaker their relationship between loot box spending and problem gambling" (Zendle et al 2020 CHB 189). This is contrary to the argument by Brooks and Clark 2019 Addictive Behaviors 33 that actual trading is a crucial feature of gambling behaviours. 85 Belgium Gaming Commission 2018 https://gamingcommission.be/sites/default/files/ 2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf 6-8. Gamers share videos online of them opening loot boxes (Zendle 2020 PeerJ 4; McCaffrey 2019 Business Horizons 485). 86 Belgium Gaming Commission 2018 https://gamingcommission.be/sites/default/files/ 2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf 6-8. 87 Belgium Gaming Commission 2018 https://gamingcommission.be/sites/default/files/ 2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf 6-8. that there is no correlation in Japan between parental loot box purchasing and that of adolescents, and that adolescents that purchase loot boxes are significantly more likely to exhibit problem online gambling problems. Sidloski et al 2022 Addictive Behaviors 5 shows that Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores "among non-gamblers were significantly elevated in loot box users vs non-loot box users, although absolute numbers were low overall". 91 Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 11; Zendle 2020 PeerJ 1 and Zendle 2019 PeerJ 1. 92 Garrett et al 2022 Int Gambl Stud 9 concludes that "loot box mechanisms appear to appeal disproportionately to a specific demographic (ie. problem gamblers), regardless of income, although the short-and long-term financial and psychological consequences of spending remain unknown". Research by D'Amico et al 2022 Nature Scientific Reports 10 seems to dispel the "gateway" theory whilst Spicer et al 2022 Addictive Behaviors 6 found that almost 20% of the loot box purchasers they studied self-reported either "gateway effects" (loot boxes causally influencing subsequent gambling) or "reverse gateway effects" (gambling causally influencing subsequent loot box engagement). Rockloff  Zendle performed in 2021 demonstrated "that the purchase of loot boxes is associated with elevated rates of problem gambling amongst minors even after higher levels of gambling consumption are taken into account". 93 As is the case in gambling, most of the revenue from loot boxes is obtained from a small percentage of gamers. 94 Although the overall relationship between problem gambling and loot boxes was "observed to be small-tomedium size", 95 problem gamblers spend less money when loot boxes are removed from video games. 96 Shi notes that there is growing concern about the association between minors who gamble and the later development of gambling problems with the accompanying negative psychological, social, financial and substance abuse, particularly for males. 97 These studies are, however, not universally accepted as conclusive 98 and not without critique. 99 Gainsbury criticises them on the basis that the researchers failed to control the gambling engagement of the participants, that they relied on convenient self-recruiting sampling and introduced Research by Hunt found that problem gamblers do indeed spend more money on loot boxes than non-problem gamblers (Hunt 2022 Int Gambl Stud 16). 93 Wardle and Zendle 2021 Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking 272. Larche et al argue that this is also the case with loot box earners (as opposed to purchasers) (Larche et al 2022 J Gambl Stud 17). 94 Zendle, Petrovskaya and Wardle 2020 https://psyarxiv.com/5k2sy 1, which leads to the potential for economic harm. Their research shows that the majority of revenue is from the top 10% of the gamers with 1% of gamers responsible for 26% of all revenue. Carey, Delfabbro and King 2022 Int J Ment Health Addict 2906 found that "loot box expenditure was low (M = $25 in 3 months, for the 10.8% of respondents who played loot boxes) but significantly positively associated with the degree of gaming-related financial harm". 95 Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 9. inadequate timeframes. 100 In addition, DeCamp's research on minors shows that loot boxes share little in common with traditional forms of gambling and that minors are less likely to purchase loot boxes than adults. 101 Moreover, the Zendle study shows that the more money a gamer made selling loot boxes, "the weaker their relationship between loot box spending and problem gambling". 102 Leaving aside the differences, the research highlights the commonalities between loot boxes and gambling. It does not determine whether loot boxes are or should legally be classified as gambling in a particular jurisdiction, however. This matter is discussed hereunder.

Conclusion
Loot boxes are a relatively new but highly profitable element in video games. What is evident, however, is that there are real concerns about the transparency of some loot boxes, the harmful impact on minors as well as their possible link to gambling and addiction. Notwithstanding the controversies, the loot box market is growing. 103 The concerns have not gone unnoticed, and research is ongoing and necessary to clarify the many uncertainties. 104 The gaming industry organisations and experts have responded to some of the concerns on an ad hoc basis and these will be set out in the next section.

Introduction
Several academics and industry experts have called for industry selfregulation to address these concernseither voluntarily by the industry or through community or governmental pressure. 105 100 Gainsbury 2019 GLR 81. Opposing interpretations of the link between loot boxes and problem gambling can also be found in the New South Wales and Dutch Loot Boxes Reports. These reports note that there is no evidence that experiences with loot boxes are related to gambling involvement or gambling problems ( The industry must recognize that they are beholden to the public they serve and that the public's best interest is their own best interest. 106 The argument is that developers, who financially benefit from loot boxes, have the power, responsibility and incentive to self-regulate and to make changes to their games to address these concerns and to prevent governmental interference or regulation. 107 But the response from video game companies has been seen as inadequate. 108 Mistry argues that selfregulation by professional industry associations remains the most appropriate solution to address these problems to avoid external interference and to allow the developers, producers, filmmakers, musicians and other artists to continue creating these games for gamers' enjoyment. 109 Individually some developers and distributors have voluntarily or under duress removed loot boxes from their games 110 or limited them to cosmetic items. 111 Others have added better labelling to video games by publishing the prizes and the odds to make their games more transparent and fairer. 112 For developers, it is ultimately a balance between current potential profit versus the promotion of long-term player engagement and a continued player base. 113 But as an industry there has been an unwillingness to unanimously admit to potential problems or harm, to be proactive, or to take comprehensive remedial action. The gaming industry's argument has mostly been that it is a gamer's free choice as to whether he wants to purchase a loot box within a game as part of an informed consent process. 114 However, some changes in attitude have been forthcoming on an ad hoc basis. 115 The Gambling Regulators European Forum (GREF), for example, released a joint statement by eighteen European regulators noting their concern about the blurring of lines between gaming and gambling and the need for 106 Fleming 2020 U Toronto Faculty L Rev 108. consumer protection, especially for minors. 116 International Game Developers Association (IGDA) called for an industry commitment not to market loot boxes to minors, to disclose the odds and to launch an educational campaign to increase parental awareness of the games. 117 However, their counterpart in Europe, European Games Developers Federation (EGDF) refused to make these commitments due to the variety of loot boxes and the legal uncertainties surrounding them. 118 The South Korean Game Industry Association admits that changes to loot boxes are needed considering the criticisms and encourages the developers in their association to be more transparent by revealing their loot boxes' contents and odds. 119 There has been some reaction to the controversy from external strategic partners. Games of the storefront companies such as Apple and Google Play App Stores must disclose the contents and odds of loot boxes. 120 PayPal has responded to the risk to minors by strengthening its processes to prevent minors from using its platform to gamble. 121 Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, major console makers for gaming, have announced new policies that would require games for their platforms to be transparent about the odds of obtaining virtual items from paid loot boxes. 122 Two further aspects deserve further discussion: the existing classification (also called the rating) of the games and the call for adopting an ethical set of guidelines by the industry and for the industry. Each is discussed hereunder. 116 Liu 2019 Wash Int LJ 787; GREF 2018 https://www.spillemyndigheden.dk/ uploads/2018-11/Declaration%20of%20gam-bling%20regulators%20on%20their %20concerns%20related%20to%20the%20blurring%20of%20lines%20between%2 0gambling%20and%20gaming%20%28002%29.pdf. 117 Honer 2021 IELR 67. Also see IGDA 2019 https://igda.org/news-archive/igdapresents-to-ftc-about-loot-boxes-and-esa-adopts-igda-recommendations/.

Classification of games
Although there is no one single organisation that represents the video game industry, a few self-regulating game classification industry associations exist. Their age classification systems are akin to film and publication classifications and traditionally focussed on age-restriction warnings due to violence and sexual content. 123 Classification is an important guide for purchasers and an incorrect classification has led to at least one claim in for damages, in France. 124 Three of the biggest industry gaming organisations committed to industry self-regulation that are involved in the classification of games, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), 125 the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA) 126 and the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) 127 all initially opposed any suggestion that loot boxes may be potentially harmful or akin to gambling. 128 Since 2020, however, ESRB and PEGI have included additional descriptors for games to inform purchasers, gamers and parents. 129 These classifications include descriptions of simulated gambling, gambling and/or in-game purchases (including random items) where gamers can purchase digital goods or services with real-world currency. 130 The ESRB has refused to rate games 123 The classification of these organisations is also crucial in South Africa as some reliance is placed on their classification, as is discussed hereunder.

126
IGEA represents the video games industry in Australia and New Zealand (IGEA 2019 https://igea.net/2019/03/igea-statement-on-the-australian-governments-responseto-the-senate-environment-and-communications-references-committee-report-ongaming-microtransactions-for-chance-based-items-loot-boxes/ and New Zealand Government Classification Office 2023 https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/ classification-info/classification-labels/); Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 3. 127 PEGI is a non-profit organisation aimed at the self-regulation and classification of games for 37 countries in the EU ( The International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) aims to address the inconsistencies and streamline the classification process through a single procedure. The IARC is a collaboration of authorities and organisations already tasked with the classification of games and allows developers to obtain classifications for multiple territories and storefronts. 135 The classification of games by itself is not adequate to address the concerns highlighted here. Research has shown that the labelling of games with an age restriction does not necessarily deter minors from playing games and may sometimes have the opposite effect. 136 In addition, parents are also not always aware of the contents of the games or the meaning of the classifications. 137  The problem with these organisations is that they have no teeth to enforce any classification 139 and with an impossible workload, they often rely on selfreporting by gaming developers. 140

Ethical guidelines
Apart from the classification of games, it has been proposed that the voluntary adoption of ethical and socially responsible industry guidelines 141 aligned with regulatory frameworks would be ideal to address the concerns about loot boxes. 142 There is consensus that the guidelines should address competing interests and correct the identified problems without interference from legislators and courts. 143 The details thereof are mired in uncertainty and controversy, however, inter alia because game designers view ethical monetisation differently. 144 The following guidelines have been suggested: Some suggest that loot boxes should be limited to non-competitive advantages by disabling pay-outs 145 and that loot boxes should be obtained only through regular play, 146 with all external trading markets for loot box items banned. 147 Others call for more nuanced industry guidelines, including the explicit and uniform 148 labelling of games to address the lack of transparency and protection of minors by adding an appropriate age classification on games. 149  information 150 and educational data 151 aimed at extending financial and parental controls to protect minors. 152 Specifically, the warnings should advise customers, parents and classification agencies about the content 153 and the age classification. 154 Age verification would be essential for the effectiveness of these suggestions. 155 In addition, it is proposed that the guidelines include advertising restrictions and transparency through upfront disclosures of the prizes and odds of winning the award so that the gamers' expectations are reasonable. 156 Additional suggestions to consider in these guidelines include mechanisms to address excessive spending on loot boxes through education and ingame warnings. 157 Gamers should be allowed to voluntarily limit their spending on loot boxes 158 or to self-exclude from the game. 159 In addition, "cool down" periods such as embedded disruptions and additional steps to the purchasing process could be included. 160 Consumer information should automatically be added in the form of periodic statements on in-game spending, combined with tips on healthy gaming behaviour and a checklist for problematic gaming use. 161 The display of the actual currency values and not just the virtual values is seen as essential to awareness of how 150 Moshirnia 2018 MJLST 109. Carvalho's solution is to use blockchain technology by coding loot boxes as smart contracts and running them on a public blockchain that allows a player to verify the randomisation mechanism to make it transparent and tamper-proof (Carvalho 2021 Decision Support Systems 2, 11). Delfabbro, Delic and King 2022 J Behav Addict 724, however, also  much is being spent. 162 What is suggested is the establishment of frameworks similar to responsible gambling initiatives. 163 Online support could be helpful, 164 as would reducing limited-time offers, repeat awards and the audio-visual design of opening a loot box. 165 A more drastic guideline to be considered is a refund entitlement under certain circumstances. 166 Xiao and Henderson argue that these proposed guidelines are unlikely to be adopted by the developers or the industry for various reasons, including vested financial interest and possible human rights violations. 167 It is anticipated that there could also be player aversion to the suggested guidelines as paternalistic, especially regarding play interruptions. 168 For the guidelines to create consumer confidence, enforcement is necessary. 169 Voluntary self-regulation will never have the teeth to enforce adherence as such regulation could potentially be ignored by those whose actions are targeted for change. 170 Enforceability of these self-regulating guidelines would be problematic and impractical. 171 In addition, the guidelines would not address the problem of the potential abuse of random award mechanisms. 172 What is needed is ethical game design, 173 but the dilemma is how to achieve this.

Conclusion
Although there are positive movements within the industry to deal with the concerns pertaining to loot boxes, some pressure seems required to enhance their commitment to self-regulation. 174 But unless this happens, the call for regulation will likely remain and even increase with numerous calls for a more holistic approach. 175 This call is made notwithstanding the 162 King and Delfabbro 2018 Int J Ment Health Addict 5. Uddin argues that adolescents lose a sense of how much they spend when they use virtual currencies for loot boxes (Uddin 2021 Family Court Review 875). 163 Macey and Bujić "Talk of the Town" 217. 164 King and Delfabbro 2018 Int J Ment Health Addict 4. 165 King and Delfabbro 2018 Int J Ment Health Addict 7. 166 King and Delfabbro 2018 Int J Ment Health Addict 9. 167 Xiao and Henderson 2021 Int J Ment Health Addict 182. They argue that the setting of age and financial limits may be discriminatory and have human rights infringement consequences (Xiao and Henderson 2021 Int J Ment Health Addict 186). Also see Xiao 2021 IELR 38-39. 168 Xiao and Henderson 2021 Int J Ment Health Addict 180. 169 Xiao 2021 IELR 37. 170 Xiao 2021 IELR 37. speed at which the gaming world develops, with policymakers always on the back foot in understanding the developments and consequences. 176 In the next section an overview is given of existing regulatory actions taken around the world.

Regulatory interferences in foreign jurisdictions
A successful regulatory policy will control risk while encouraging positive social behaviour, with regular re-evaluation to ensure policies remain relevant in the face of changing environments and technologies. 177 Considering that convergence is supported by rapid advances in technology and is taking place largely on the Internet (accessible 24 h), harms for consumers could manifest quickly and spread broadly across societies before their existence and severity are established. 178

Introduction
Most commentators agree that some form of regulation is defensible. 179 Minors and other vulnerable gamers should be protected 180 when the games are harmful and addictive. 181 This is necessary as current selfregulation initiatives by the industry to deal with such concerns are inadequate. 182 There are government-sponsored age-related classification systems for video games. 183 As far as we could establish, it is only in Australia, Spain and Indonesia where gambling-related content and in-game purchases are specifically included in the government classification systems. 184  where the industry classification initiatives are useful as many countries accept the industry classification systems discussed above. 185 Leaving aside developments in the USA, it is expedient to note that although a few countries are currently investigating loot boxes, 186 some jurisdictions have acted on loot boxes, although the solutions adopted differ. There is currently no uniform approach globally as to how loot boxes should be regulated.
An outright regulatory ban on all loot boxes is theoretically possible, but most commentators see this as too paternalistic an option, 187 leaning towards over-regulation 188 and being unjustified. 189 There have been calls against an overreaction to possible addictive game designs as they will interfere with the standard gaming flow design that is neither unethical nor abusive. 190 In addition, it is argued that a ban on all loot boxes may have unintended consequences and restrict the freedom of adults to make informed choices. 191 There are also doubts about the possible success of enforcing such a ban. 192 The regulatory actions in foreign jurisdictions can be summarised as follows: 193

Overview of jurisdictions
There are two main groups of regulation, one focussing on consumer protection and the other on the national gambling regulatory framework. First the consumer protection initiatives.
Although loot boxes remain legal in Japan, South Korea, China and Germany, some limitations on loot boxes have been enforced. In Japan 194 the Act Against Unjustifiable Premiums or Unexpected Benefits and Misleading Representations resulted in the banning of "Kompu gacha" games, which contained multi-layered loot boxes, as being exploitative. 195 In South Korea the 2011 Youth Protection Revision Act requires loot boxes to be transparent, requires the developers to disclose the prizes and odds of loot boxes and requires companies to limit players under sixteen from playing between midnight and 6 a.m. 196 The South Korean Games Rating Board controls the loot boxes by preventing games from being approved for release in the country or giving them a classification of 18+. 197 In 2018 the South Korean Fair Trade Commission fined three game developers almost ₩ 1 million for misleading players about loot boxes. 198 In China, where dedicated game servers facilitate enforcement, 199 loot boxes may not be purchased with cash and the transfer of virtual currency for real currency is prohibited. 200 In addition, all loot boxes must be transparent and display all rewards and the odds of winning. 201 Furthermore, the purchasing of loot boxes includes a more complicated twostep payment confirmation system with spending limits to make the purchasing process more complicated. 202 Limits have also been imposed on the hours minors can spend playing games and the monthly amounts that may be spent. 203 This approach has been described as a sensible Most other Western countries focus on the ambiguous gambling legal status of loot boxes and whose regulatory responsibility it should be where it offends national legal gambling principles. 207 Oversimplified, the three essential gambling elements in most national jurisdictions are one, a stake (a consideration given); two, where chance determines, three, a payout or prize. 208 There is no uniform interpretation of these elements amongst jurisdictions, there are no unified outcomes within regulatory frameworks and there are no consistent enforcement mechanisms. 209 On the one hand, in New Zealand, 210 Ireland 211 and France 212 loot boxes are not considered gambling and thus not controlled by their gambling regulatory frameworks. The rationale in these countries is similar: one, there is always a prize to be won in a loot box; and two, the items do not have real-world value, 213 although the last aspect is unconvincing. 214 On the other hand, in Belgium the purchasing of all loot boxes is regarded as gambling in terms of its legislation. 215  Research Report on Loot Boxes has recommended a ban on minors purchasing these games or using the payment platforms for those games until specific permits have been developed to safely accommodate loot boxes. 216 The Gambling Commission has demanded the removal of all loot boxes from games sold in Belgium and most developers have complied, "albeit reluctantly". 217 The choice given by the authorities to the developers was simple: remove the loot boxes, withdraw the game or face criminal prosecution. 218 Xiao disagrees that the ban is successful and states that in mid-2022, 82% of the highest-grossing iPhone games in Belgium continue to sell loot boxes for real-world money and instead of improving consumer protection, it shifted gamers towards higher-risk illegal providers. 219 In several countries a difference is made between tradable and non-tradable loot boxes with only tradable loot boxes meeting the legal definition of gambling of the applicable national gambling legislation. This was the case in Denmark, 220 originally in the Netherlands, 221 Sweden, 222 Canada, 223 Poland, 224 the UK 225 and Australia. Only in two of these jurisdictions, however, did this lead to any enforcement action. In Denmark the Danish Gambling Authority has since 2018 obtained court orders to force telecommunications companies to block illegal gambling sites, including some video-gaming sites with tradable loot boxes targeting minors and which operate without the licence required in terms of the Danish gambling statute. 226 In the Netherlands, tradable loot boxes were regarded as gambling in terms of the gambling legislation, 227 and the Dutch Gaming Authority required games to remove addiction-sensitive elements. 228 The Authority has the power to impose a fine of up to € 830 000 or 10% of the company's worldwide turnover for any breaches, and should this not be sufficient it can resort to criminal proceedings. 229 Some developers have updated their games according to these requirements, but others have refused and challenged the decision. 230 On 9 March 2022 the final appeal by EA against the financial penalty imposed by the Gambling Authority was successful: The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State found that loot boxes in the Ultimate Team Mode of the FIFA video games (FUT) published by Electronic Arts (EA) did not contravene Dutch gambling law, contrary to the Netherlands Gambling Authority's (Kansspelautoriteit) previous 2018 interpretation of the law and overruling a previous 2020 judgment that affirmed the Kansspelautoriteit's previous interpretation. 231 In short, the judge found that a loot box is not gambling as it does not meet the statutory requirement of an independent "game of chance": loot boxes should be seen in the context of the overarching video game and cannot exist separately from the game. 232 This is a unique interpretation of loot boxes. Xiao and Declerck criticise the approach as over-reliant on how the majority of players engage with the game without taking into account the for trading the loot box items (Zendle and Cairns 2019 Plos ONE 2). Schwiddessen and Karius 2018 IELR 25-27 disagree that there is legal certainty about tradable loot boxes for real currency, as the UK Commission statements, according to them, are subject to numerous interpretations. 226 Danish Gambling Authority 2019 https://www.spillemyndigheden.dk/en/news/ danish-gambling-authority-has-25-illegal-gambling-websites-blocked#:~:text=On%20March%2025%2C%202019%2C%20City,block%2025%20i llegal%20gambling%20websites 1 and Danish Gambling Authority 2021 https://www.spillemyndigheden.dk/en/skin-betting-and-loot-boxes-video-gaming-or-gambling#skin-betting-and-loot-boxes-video-gaming-or-gambling?-3 with reference to a 2018 Frederiksberg court and 25 March 2019 Copenhagen city court decisions. 227 Section 1 of the Wet op de Kansspelen requires a licence for persons providing gambling games to the public (Shen 2020 UIC John Marshall Law Review 1097 with reference to "addiction-sensitive" games such as Hearthstone). 228 Liu 2019  differences between purchased and earned loot boxes. 233 The judgment also does not answer the question as to whether: the de facto real-world economic value of loot box content gained through the use of the 'black market' satisfies the 'prize' (or equivalent) criterion of gambling law, despite the company explicitly prohibiting players from selling loot box content in exchange for real-world money (i.e., participating in black market trading) and thereby granting them real-world economic value. 234 In the other jurisdictions where tradable loot boxes meet the gambling statutory requirements, no action has been taken to implement the provisions of the applicable gambling legislation. 235 The gambling regulators in these countries do not regard it as part of their mandate to oversee loot boxes. They are either unable to or uninterested in dealing with the issue, notwithstanding the possible harm to minors and addiction fears. 236 It seems as if the solutions to these concerns in these jurisdictions should be sought elsewhere. In the UK the official solution suggested focusses on classifying these games in such a way as to limit them to those above the gambling age and to use in educational programmes, 237 although there are calls for pre-emptive regulation as a precautionary measure to limit harm. 238 In Australia the official outcome was that regulation should be considered only after further research. 239 The experts show a preference for consumer protection regulations to protect the vulnerable rather than using the 233 Xiao and Declerck 2022 OSF Preprints 16. gambling framework. 240 EU Guidelines also suggest a consumer law approach rather than a gambling approach. 241 Cartwright and Hyde argue that loot boxes can be viewed either as unfair labour practices or misleading practices, alternatively as deceptive or aggressive and immersion game design. 242 Although a consumer protection approach may appear more accessible, Leahy argues against it. He notes that the focus should be on player protection and not on consumer protection and that the approach does not take into account the structural differences between gambling regulation and consumer laws: gambling regulation is about control, the imposing of regulations to protect players and regulatory supervision, all at the cost of the operator. Consumer law is less invasive, more informational and aimed at informing the consumer so that consent is informed. 243

Conclusion
In conclusion, there is little uniformity in the jurisdictional responses to loot boxes, with divergent degrees of enforcement and protection. 244 There are two main approaches to address the concerns: a consumer protection approach or a gambling framework approach.
What makes the route of existing gambling legislation enticing is that the national gambling regulatory frameworks have a proven history of promoting responsible gambling and harm-minimisation with established preventative measures. 245 Game developers would loathe their games to be classified as gambling and have to submit to costly regulatory processes worldwide. 246 From a broader perspective, it remains important for the loot box concerns to be addressed, irrespective of the legal avenue chosen. 247

Calls for a holistic approach
Self-regulation, the classification of games and possible ethical guidelines cannot be the final solutions to the loot box concerns, especially in an industry where pockets still fail to acknowledge these concerns, some believe in bad faith, 248 and the response has been described as 240 Nettleton, Abi-Hanna and Pasternacki 2020 The Bulletin 3. As this has not yet been tested in court, it is unclear if the outcome would be positive. lacklustre. 249 It is argued that game companies have until now propagated distrust through their lack of action 250 and it is expected that the industry will keep manoeuvring to avoid compliance unless pressured by stakeholders, governments and other strategic partners. 251 Any change would have to include long-term benefits for the industry as well. 252 The EA saga has shown that the nature of the internet makes it possible for stakeholders to pressure change successfully. 253 There are numerous suggestions. McCaffrey argues that self-regulation would be successful only if gamers and regulators were to enter into an informal alliance to force game developers to address the loot box concerns. 254 In addition, gamers and other stakeholders, such as parents, could assist in holding developers accountable by supporting games adhering to ethical practices. 255 Moreover, governments could use gentle financial coercion to motivate developers to be accountable and adopt specific guidelines through investments, grants or tax relief for the gaming industry 256 or to encourage new game design. 257 As previously mentioned, major strategic online partners have effectively motivated developers to change potentially harmful practices. 258 Closer alignment with companies such as PayPal, Google, Facebook, Apple and game console developers could be utilised to effect changes to protect minors and the vulnerable. 259 Experts reiterate that communication between the stakeholders is essential if these options are to be successful. McCaffrey argues that developers should dedicate resources to navigating the legal issues and the complex relationship between customer and regulatory complaints by directly involving customer communities, trade organisations and other strategic partners. 260  Finally, the approach adopted by both regulators and legislators requires more effective communication regarding the rationale behind their adopted strategy in order that regulators can demonstrate that they are not anti-game or antigamer. As a consequence, decisions are more likely to be understood and accepted by the gaming community, rather than being perceived as diktats from an uninformed and uninterested authority. Active and targeted communication strategies on the part of authorities are likely. 261 Some experts argue for a more holistic approach that includes pressure from stakeholders in addition to the available criminal and civil sanctions: shaming tactics against recalcitrant game developers; possible retrograde reclassification; specific guidance as to the best principles to include in ethical game design; and education. 262 Any universal and targeted measures to reduce harmful gambling would have to address several domains: price and taxation, availability and accessibility, marketing and advertising, promotion and sponsorship; environment and technology; information and education; and treatment and support. 263 Prospective policy should include provisions for clear definitions of loot boxes, game labelling and age ratings, full disclosure of odds presented in an easyto-understand way, spending limits and prices in real currency, and finally, obligations of gatekeepers (i.e. developers, distributors, content providers) for the trade they enable and profit from. 264 Xiao argues inter alia for disclosure requirements to be specific and detailed, and that "prospective regulation should recognise certain submechanics of loot boxes, such as pity-timers, which gradually change the player's probabilities of obtaining rarer rewards and carefully consider how to regulate them: should they be required to be disclosed in a specific way or should they be banned outright?" 265 The best solution going forward with loot box regulation may be for the law to set a minimum standard that does not overregulate, and for self-regulation to complement the legal regime by thriving to achieve an even higher standard of consumer protection. 266 It is against this background that the South African legal situation is contemplated. 261 Macey and Bujić "Talk of the Town" 217.

Introduction
As mentioned above, the video game market in South Africa is significant, and the loot box controversy and concerns are directly relevant. This includes the lack of transparency and information about the games, the targeting and participation of minors, and gambling-related concerns. Although there are existing statutes that are or should be applicable, there are broader constitutional, international and public policies that should also be consideredespecially with regard to minors. These imperatives are highlighted before discussing the legislation.

Minors: constitutional, international and policy imperatives
Although research on loot boxes in South Africa is limited, we know that video games are an important part of the entertainment of children from different socio-economic backgrounds in the country between the ages of 7 and 17. 267 With video games, there is evidence of the manipulation of minors for commercial purposes such as data collection, targeted advertising and gambling opportunities. 268 Minors deserve more protection than adults because of their capacities are not yet fully developed. They are less able to assess the risks and consequences of their actions and less able to protect their data. 269 The protection of minors against harm is a constitutional 270 imperative: "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in any matter concerning the child." 271 The protection of children is thus also highlighted in various pieces of legislation, including the statute dealing with the age classification of games, consumer protection, and the gambling statutes, as discussed hereunder.
Protecting the rights of children is also an international law obligation. In terms of section 39(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, when interpreting the Bill of Rights the court, tribunal or forum must consider international law and may consider foreign law. 272 South Africa has ratified the Convention on the 267 It is worth repeating that FPB and UNISA Impact Research Report 30 found that children in South Africa play games that have been classified for ages they have not reached yet. See fn 18. 268 Sargeant "Rights-Based Approach to Online Economic Exploitation" 19. 269 Van der Hof et al 2022 Frontiers in Digital Health 4. 270 The Constitution is the supreme law of the country and binds all levels of government, organs of state and individuals (s 8(1)-(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution)). 271 Section 28(2) of the Constitution. 272 Section 233 further imposes an obligation on courts, to "prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international law over an alternative interpretation that is inconsistent with international law". International law Rights of the Child (CRC), 273 and one of the four goals of the CRC is to prevent harm to children. 274 The CRC also contains the principle of the best interests of the child. 275 Other relevant children's rights contained in the CRC are the right to play, the right to health, the right to be protected against economic exploitation and the right to data protection. 276 The aim is not to discuss each of these rights but to focus on South Africa's obligation as a state party regarding children in a digital environment. It should be noted, however, that a child's right to leisure and play includes this caveat: Leisure time spent in the digital environment may expose children to risks of harm, for example, through opaque or misleading advertising or highly persuasive or gambling-like design features. By introducing or using data protection, privacy-by-design and safety-by-design approaches and other regulatory measures, State parties should ensure that businesses do not target children using those or other techniques designed to prioritize commercial interests over those of the child. 277 The Committee on the Rights of the Child that monitors the CRC 278 issued General Comment No 25 on Children's Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment. This General Comment explains to a State party how to implement and comply with its obligations under the CRC vis-à-vis minors in the digital environment. 279 The guidance is comprehensive and includes: one, the involvement of national and local bodies to oversee and coordinate the fulfilment of these rights; 280 two, taking appropriate measures to protect children from content risks, 281  national legislation to bring it in line with the CRC; 283 three, conducting research 284 and providing information and education to all stakeholders; 285 four, respecting and having due regard to the views and evolving capacities of the child when developing legislation, policies and programmes and when designing and applying appropriate safeguards; 286 five, enforcing these measures and providing children with access to justice, effective remedies and appropriate reparations 287 and ensuring compliance by the business sector also through developing industry codes to the highest standards of ethics, privacy and safety; 288 and lastly, ensuring that providers apply "concise and intelligible labelling, for example on the age-appropriateness or trustworthiness of the content". 289 This General Comment has been practices to promote the protection of these rights (arts 123-124 of the General Comment). 283 Article 23 of the General Comment. 284 Article 30 of the General Comment. This should include collecting data and mandating impact assessments to inform policies to address these issues (arts 23-24 of the General Comment). To regulate against known harms, State parties must proactively consider emerging research and evidence in the public health sector to prevent inter alia services that may damage children's mental health, and to prevent unhealthy engagement in digital games designs that undermine a child's development and rights (art 96 of the General Comment). 285 This includes the duty to disseminate information and conduct awareness campaigns and educational programmes for children, parents, professionals, the business sector and policymakers (art 32 of the General Comment). Also see the art 49 obligations to provide children with child-sensitive and age-appropriate information about complaint mechanisms, services and remedies should their rights be violated in the digital environment. Art 55 has the same obligation vis-à-vis content labelling. There is a duty to provide training and advice inter alia to parents, caregivers and educators on the appropriate use of digital devices to prevent harm to children (art 15 of the General Comment.) This creation of awareness in parents should include respect for a child's autonomy, capacities and privacy (art 21). 286 Articles 17 and 19 of the General Comment.

287
Article 43-49 of the General Comment. Implement measures to protect children from risks by ensuring investigation of crimes and the provision of remedies and support for child victims including child-friendly information (art 25 of the General Comment). In addition, this includes providing specialised training for law enforcement for crossborder crimes (art 47 of the General Comment). State parties must also ensure that the appropriate enforcement measures are in place and must support children and parents' access thereto. "They should legislate to ensure that children are protected from harmful goods, … such as gambling. Robust age verification systems should be used to prevent children from acquiring access to products and services that are illegal for them to own or use" (art 114 of the General Comment). 288 Article 39 of the General Comment. There is a duty to protect children against the infringement by the business sector (arts 35-36 of the General Comment. This includes that State parties must require the business sector to undertake child right's due diligence and impact assessments and disclose them to the public (art 38)). The protection of privacy is also addressed in arts 67-78 of the General Comments, particularly where businesses rely financially on the processing of personal data as set out in art 40 and the aim in art 42 is to prevent the profiling and targeting of children for commercial purposes.
published very recently and no action has been visible in the country as yet to implement its guidelines. Several statutes reiterate a child's right to protection, including the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and the ten gambling statutes discussed hereunder as a possible vehicle to include in the CRC requirements. The issue of children's rights in video games and specifically the concerns pertaining to loot boxes have not been given specific attention in South Africa, however. One of the questions to be answered is whether some of the existing frameworks and legislative provisions could or should be used or amended to deal with the specific loot box concerns.
Before considering the legislation it may be appropriate to make a brief comment on the gaming industry's response in South Africa to date.

Self-regulation and the gaming industry response
There is no single organisation that represents the South African gaming fraternity. There are two existing organisations: Interactive Entertainment South Africa (IESA), which has commented on possible policy changes to the Films and Publication Amendment Act of 2015, 290 and the organisation Games Industry Africa, which is only an information source for the industry. Their impact on implementing changes in the industry seems to be minimal. South Africa does benefit from international industry initiatives, however, specifically where games are amended to be more ethical for whatever reason such as pressure from foreign jurisdictions and storefront policy changes; and classifications by foreign rating organisations that are adopted here.

Legislation
The existing legislation already directly or indirectly applicable to video games and potentially loot boxes is the following: the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and the eleven gambling statutes. Each of these will be discussed hereunder. 290 IESA for example commented on the Films and Publications Amendment Bill [B 37-2015] (IESA date unknown https://pmg.org.za/files/160830iesa.pptx). The Games Industry Africa (GIA) of Vic Bassey is merely a source of information about the African games industry but does not provide any regulatory or evaluation support (GIA date unknown https://gamesindustryafrica.com/about/).

Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996 291
In terms of the Films and Publications Act, the Films and Publications Council 292 of the Film and Publication Board, 293 an independent body, is tasked with issuing classification guidelines for the age classification inter alia of video games in addition to films and other publications. 294 It provides for an evaluation regulatory process for the classification of games for a fee, 295 aimed at consumer advice towards informed consent and the protection of minors from harmful content. 296 One of the core strategic functions of the FPB is outreach and public education. 297 The Act as read with the Classification Guidelines for the Classification of Films, Games and Certain Publications of 2022 includes the following possible classifications of games with restricted distribution content: prohibited content ("refused classification") 298 or classifiable elements for an XX-classification, 299 X18-classification, 300 or age restricted-classification.

294
Section 18 as read with the definition of "game" in s 1 of the Films and Publications Act. 295 A full discussion of the process to be followed falls outside the scope of this study. See in general the 2022 Regulations. It should be noted that there are prescribed fees (Amended Films and Publications Tariffs Regulations, 2020 (GN 1174 in GG 43872 of 6 November 2020)). 296 Section 2 of the Films and Publications Act. 297 FPB date unknown https://www.fpb.org.za/what-we-do/outreach-public-education-2/. 298 Section 18(3)(a) of the Films and Publications Act where the game "(i) contains child pornography, propaganda for war or incites imminent violence; or (ii) advocates hatred based on identifiable group characteristic and that constitutes incitement to cause harm" subject to limited exceptions. See regs 5.1(10) and 5.10 of the 2022 Classification Guidelines. 299 Section 18(3)(b) of the Films and Publications Act where the game contains certain types of explicit sexual conduct or violence. Also see regs 5.1(11) and 5.11 of the 2022 Classification Guidelines. 300 Section 18(c) of the Films and Publications Act where the game contains certain types of explicit sexual conduct. Also see regs 5.1(12) and 5.12 of the 2022 Classification Guidelines. 301 Section 18(d) of the Films and Publications Act where the game contains content "disturbing or harmful to, or age-inappropriate for children", an appropriate age restriction can be imposed. In terms of reg 2.2 of the 2022 Classification Guidelines The guiding principles for consideration when classifying games include the context, impact and release format of the game's content. 302 Regulation 5.1(3) notes: the degree of interactivity of the game (such as first-person as opposed to third-person gameplay), the use of incentives and rewards, technical features and competitive intensity, has to be considered in determining the intensity of impact.
The Board does not classify the games. It can either adopt the selfclassification by an accredited commercial online distributor in terms of the prescribed guidelines, 303 or it can use the classifications of a foreign or international classification authority or body. 304 Such classification will be deemed to be that of the Board and non-compliance with a classification, if done knowingly, is a criminal offence. 305 Other remedies for any breach include a civil action such as an interdict or a claim for damages. 306 Although it may appear at first glance that the loot box issue may be dealt with in terms of this statute, the Classification Guidelines is limited to what is contained in the regulations, which do not include classifications for gambling, simulated gambling or in-game purchases in video game. For illustration purposes, the game Babylon's Fall, which includes tradable loot boxes, 307 received a classification in January 2022 by the Board of 16, with the classifiable elements include competitive intensity (CI) with reference to violence, criminal techniques (CT), substance abuse (D), imitative acts and techniques (IAT), horror (H), language (L), nudity (N), prejudice (P), sexual conduct (S), sexual violence (SV) and violence (V). The possible classifications include: No age restriction (PG), Low (7-9PG), Mild (10-12PG), Moderate (13), Strong (16) or Very strong (18). 302 Regulation 5.1(1) of the 2022 Classification Guidelines. Advice should be added where a game contains photo or pattern sensitivity, motion sickness and reacting to low frequency sound (PPS). For context, the expectations of the public in general and the target market of the content in particular, the manner in which the issue is presented, and the apparent intention of the game creator, as it is reflected in its effect, should be considered (reg 5.1(2)). Reg 5.1(3) specifically notes that the "degree of interactivity of the game (such as first-person as opposed to third-person gameplay), the use of incentives and rewards, technical features and competitive intensity, has to be considered in determining the intensity of impact". 303 Section 18C(1)-(2)(f) of the Films and Publications Act. The rationale is costeffectiveness (FPB Labelling Strategy 7.1). 304 This would be possible on application by the distributor (s 18D(1) of the Films and Publications Act.) The FPB Research Report highlighted the need for regulatory mechanisms to close the gap between international and South African classification systems (FPB Research Report para 5.5). There are also additional obligations set for internet access and service providers (s 24C). The question may rightly be asked if this statute provides sufficient protection of minors against the loot box concerns. The answer is negative. This FPB Convergence Survey Report confirms the possible harm to minors and that it has insufficient information on games to be able to make an informed decision about their contents. 309 One, there are no categories for gambling/simulated gambling or for issuing a warning about in-game purchases. Two, as the FPB relies on external classifications, its acknowledgement that there is a need to enhance the monitoring procedures in tracking the labels is concerning. 310 Three, most children have limited awareness of the age restrictions and classification guidelines for games by the FPB 311 with less than 20% of parents actively complying with the FPB regulations. 312 It is submitted that this statute should be amended to include the classifications for gambling, simulated gambling and in-game purchases as a first step towards informing minors, the parents and other stakeholders about possible harmful content when purchasing and playing the game. This is submitted notwithstanding the evidence and arguments that classification by itself is not sufficient to protect minors and that minors themselves may not welcome age classifications. 313 As outreach and public education are core strategic functions of the FPB, this function could be extended to include education about the concerns with loot boxes. As an aside, these amendments could be useful to facilitate the investigation of and enforcement against non-compliant developers and distributors as well as service providers. 314 308 In Australia, classifications of in-game purchases and simulated gaming were added.

Consumer protection legislation
As in other jurisdictions, there have been suggestions that consumer protection legislation could be useful to address the concerns about loot boxes. 315 There is no holistic and comprehensive protection for consumers transacting electronically in South Africa. 316 The protection is fragmented and includes the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECTA) and industryspecific self-regulatory codes such as the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB). 317 This section will focus on the CPA and specifically excludes the ECTA and the ARB. 318 There are certain fundamental consumer rights relevant to the concerns about loot boxes, particularly the right to disclosure and information, 319 the right to fair and responsible marketing, 320 the right to fair and honest dealing the right against unconscionable conduct, false, misleading or deceptive representations, 321 and the right to privacy. 322 The purpose of the Act is inter alia to protect consumers, including minors or other vulnerable consumers, from unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable, unjust and improper trade practices of goods and services. 323 The Long Title of the CPA determines that the aim of the legislation is inter alia to establish national norms and standards for consumer protection, to prohibit certain unfair practices and to improve the information given to consumers: To promote a fair, accessible and sustainable marketplace for consumer products and services and for that purpose to establish national norms and standards relating to consumer protection, to provide for improved standards of consumer information, to prohibit certain unfair marketing and business practices, to promote responsible consumer behaviour, to promote a Section 11 of the CPA. 323 Section 3(1)(b)(iii) as read with s 3(1)(d) of the CPA. S 9(1) of the CPA recognises that there may be grounds for the differential treatment of customers based on age. consistent legislative and enforcement framework relating to consumer transactions and agreements, to establish the National Consumer Commission… The Act is aimed at improving consumer awareness and information to encourage responsible and informed consumer choices, including proper product labelling and trade descriptions. 324 The consumer's right to information about goods includes that the information should be framed in plain, understandable language 325 and should not be misleading. 326 The CPA provisions are enforced by the Consumer Protection Commission, the powers of which range from investigating complaints to enforcing compliance notices. 327 The purpose of a compliance notice is to ensure that the non-compliant party is informed about its non-compliance and be given an opportunity to correct it. 328 The Commission is obliged to consult with any regulatory licensing body prior to issuing the notice. 329 Non-compliance with the notice is an offence and may lead to an administrative fine levied by the National Consumer Tribunal or referral to the National Prosecuting Authority for criminal prosecution. 330 For our current purposes, it should be noted that video games fall within the scope of the CPA. 331 It is submitted that, in principle, the consumer information provisions can be utilised to force developers and distributors through a compliance notice procedure and possible criminal prosecution to engage in the proper labelling and disclosure of information about loot boxes. This may go some way towards preventing potential harm to children. The process is consumer driven, however, and would rely on complaints received by consumers and actions taken by the Commission.

Gambling legislation
As gaming and gambling continue to converge, there will be a greater importance placed on the need to understand the optimal approachesincluding player education, interventions, industry action, and modifications to the activities themselvesto respond effectively to the needs and behaviours of this large and diverse player base. 332 324 Section 24 of the CPA. This includes the right to information in plain language (s 22). There is uncertainty about the legal status of loot boxes in South Africa, specifically whether they meet the definition of gambling as contained in gambling statutes as influenced by public policy.
In South Africa, public policy and the gambling legislative framework are based on the limited legalisation of gambling opportunities combined with strict regulation through a licensing system. 333 There are eleven gambling statutes and eleven gambling regulatory boards, two at the national level and the remainder at the provincial level. 334 The legislation is divided into the regulation of lotteries and sports pools by the Lotteries Act and the regulation of other forms of gambling by the National Gambling Act in conjunction with the nine provincial gambling statutes. In addition, certain norms and standards have been adopted in the legislation, including the need to mitigate the over-stimulation of the latent demand for gambling, 335 the need for the protection of minors 336 and protection against the negative socio-economic impacts of gambling and gambling addiction. 337 333 The framework is a result of two gambling commission reports published in the early 1990s, both recommending the limited legalisation combined with the strict regulation of gambling (Howard, Strauss and Mahanyele Commission of Inquiry into Lotteries Report 22, still under the Apartheid regime that was almost immediately shelved for political reasons, and the Lotteries and Gambling Board Main Report on Gambling 7). 334 Dos Santos mentions that a loot box may theoretically be a lottery, depending on how the relationship between the game and the loot box is viewed. 338 Lotteries are defined to: include any game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, promotional competition or device for distributing prizes by lot or chance and any game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, competition or device, which the Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare to be a lottery. 339 Although loot boxes may prima facie appear to fall within the broad definition of a lottery, it is submitted that the nature of a loot box is different from that of a lottery. A lottery has a finite number of prizes, the winners to be determined by lot. With loot boxes, purchasing a loot box is independent of gamers buying similar ones. 340 In addition, the Lotteries Act is limited to the regulation of specific types of lotteries, which is not applicable to the loot box scenario. 341 The legislation provides for a detailed licensing process as well as enforcement mechanisms. 342 It is submitted that loot boxes are more akin to gambling as regulated by the National Gambling Act and the provincial gambling statutes. The crux of the system is that any unlicensed gambling activity is unlawful and prohibited. 343 It is the same for land-based gambling operations as well as online gambling games. 344 The 2008 National Gambling Amendment Act aimed at further regulating interactive gambling has not been promulgated. 345 338 Dos Santos 2019 https://www.itweb.co.za/content/Pero37ZgzdEMQb6m 2. He notes that on the one hand, some argue that a loot box cannot be a lottery as the game and the loot box are indivisible and that the aim is not to create a lottery but to play the game for entertainment. On the other hand, others argue that the loot box is separate from the video game and as such the loot boxes can be removed. 339 Section 1 of the Lotteries Act. 340 A further discussion hereof is excluded from this article. 341 The lotteries allowed in terms of the Lotteries Act are the National Lottery, lotteries incidental to exempt entertainment, private lotteries, societal lotteries and promotional competitions (Parts I-II of the Lotteries Act). 342 The gambling statutes have been designed to include the closure of unlicensed gambling operators with harsh penalties for offenders. 343 Section 8 of the National Gambling Act; Casino Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Gambling Board 2011 6 SA 614 (SCA) para [40]. 344 Section 11 of the National Gambling Act. Some betting sites have been licensed by provincial gambling authorities to operate online. An "interactive game" means: "a gambling game played or available to be played through the mechanism of an electronic agent accessed over the Internet other than a game that can be accessed for play only in licensed premises, and only if the licensee of any such premises is authorised to make such a game available for play" (s 1 of the National Gambling Act. Also see NGB Potential Impact of 4IR 32). "Internet" is defined in s 1 of the ECTA, which defines this concept as the "interconnected system of networks that connects computers around the world" through the use of a specified technology labelled as "TCP/IP". A "gambling game" is defined to mean any activity played upon payment of any consideration, with a chance that the person playing the game might receive a pay-out; and the skill of the player, the element of chance, or both might determine the result.
The essential elements for an activity to be regarded as a gambling game are one, the payment of consideration given; two, an element of chance that, three, determines the pay-out or prize. 346 The element of "consideration" is defined to include: money, merchandise, property, a cheque, a token, a ticket, electronic credit, credit, debit, or an electronic chip, or similar object; or any other thing, undertaking, promise, agreement, or assurance. 347 In the context of loot boxes, a "consideration" would thus include a gamer using real currency to buy the loot box directly or via the video game's virtual currency. 348 Loot boxes contain an element of "chance" in that the gamer receives an item which is determined randomly and disclosed only upon opening the loot box. 349 It is submitted that loot boxes comply with this element of the definition of a "gambling game".
Can the receipt of the item in a loot box be regarded as a "payout" in terms of the legislation? A "payout" is defined to mean: Section 1 of the National Gambling Act. 348 Sections 1 and 5(1)(a) of the National Gambling Act. This is the same in the other jurisdictions discussed above. See inter alia Belgium Gaming Commission 2018 https://gamingcommission.be/sites/default/files/2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-lootboxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf 9-10. 349 The argument in foreign jurisdictions that gaining loot boxes arises from the exercise of skill is not applicable in South Africa as the definition includes both chance and skill. This is also the case in most jurisdictions mentioned above, except for Belgium. The Belgium Gaming Commission 2018 https://gamingcommission.be/sites/default/ files/2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf 9-10 notes that the mere fact that there is a chance to win or lose is enough for it to be regarded as gambling in terms of the national legislation. Also see Xiao 2021 IELR 35; Cermak 2020 MSU ILR 285 and Abarbanel 2018 GLR 232. any money, merchandise, property, a cheque, credit, electronic credit, a debit, a token, a ticket, or anything else of value that is won because of a player or operator's skill, chance, or both; regardless of how the payout is made. 350 It is submitted that as a tradable loot box item may be cashed out in real currency either within the game or via a third party, it complies with this element of a "gambling game". The wording "regardless of how the payout is made" was added to the definition as a result of land-based illegal operators amending their gambling machines not to make a payout, but giving the gamer an opportunity to play a further game. These opportunities could then be traded for cash at a third-party vendor. 351 Where there is no payout of the loot box item either directly or indirectly, even though it may be valuable to the gamer in the game, the loot box would not meet the definition requirements and buying it would thus not be gambling. 352 To conclude, a tradable loot box meets the three requirements to be classified as a "gambling game" and also an "interactive game". 353 As such, tradable loot boxes are unlawful unless licensed in terms of the legislation. 354 Accepting this conclusion, the question is whether loot boxes can and should be regulated under the gambling framework. The National Gambling Board has already noted the risks loot boxes pose to minors. 355 For a gambling activity to be legal, however, a licence is required from a provincial gambling board. This is currently an impossibility as the legislation does not provide for such a licence. 356 Substantial legislative amendments would be necessary for tradable loot boxes to be licensed and legalised. The upside hereof would be that minors would be prohibited from purchasing tradable 350 Section 6(1) of the National Gambling Act. 351 Most systems removed the hopper from the gambling machine so that patrons could not be paid money directly, but gave the patron an "opportunity to play a further game" (see inter alia AK Entertainment CC The only licences provincial gambling boards have the power to award are licences for casinos, bingo, route and site operators, totalisator and bookmaker licences as well as horse racing-related licences. loot boxes, 357 self-exclusion would become a possibility for problem gamblers, 358 and the gambling addiction support mechanisms and free counselling of the South African Responsible Gambling Foundation (SARGF) would become available. 359 The downside would be that using the gambling framework would require legislative changes, a costly and cumbersome procedure for game developers, and additional pressure would be exerted on regulators, who would have to be upskilled to deal with this new activity.
It is worth noting that South African payers have been blocked from participating in fictional casino gambling in certain online games such as Grand Theft Auto V: Online. 360 It could not be confirmed whether the lockout in South Africa was proactively performed by the game developer, or whether it was performed as a result of actions taken by one of the South African regulatory boards.

Conclusion
South Africa has existing legislation that could potentially deal with some of the concerns about loot box and could partially meet the constitutional and international law imperatives vis-à-vis minors.
The Films and Publications Act could be amended to include classifications for gambling, simulated gambling and in-game purchases, to inform minors and parents of the contents of games. In addition, the existing information and education programmes could be extended to these issues. This would address one of the many CRC obligations, namely to ensure concise and intelligible labelling with age-appropriate indications of the content.
In its current form customers, parents and other stakeholders may lodge complaints with the CPA to investigate, and the CPA could then issue compliance notices with the usual consequences for non-compliance. This individual approach would not deal with the concerns effectively, however.
The gambling legislation is applicable to tradable loot boxes and in theory the various gambling boards should be able to act against the game developers and distributors. Whether the regulatory boards regard it as part of their duties and whether there is the will to do so is debatable. 357 Section 12 of the National Gambling Act. 358 Section 14 of the National Gambling Act. 359 For an overview of their treatment services, see SARGF date unknown https://responsiblegambling.org.za/treatment-programme/. They are geared to adopt the newest research in treatment options such as the 2022 research by Andréa et al 2022 Upsala J Med Sci 6. 360 Powers 2021 https://www.vgr.com/south-african-gamers-still-cant-access-the-gtaonline-diamond-casino/; and ENUK 2019 https://esports-news.co.uk/2019/08/26/ countries-that-have-banned-the-new-gta-casino-and-why/.
These options are insufficient to protect consumers and especially minors against the potential harms of loot boxes, however. The obligations placed on South Africa by the General Comment of the CRC still need to be addressed: which national and local bodies will oversee and coordinate the fulfilment of these rights? What appropriate measures will be taken to protect children from content risks? Who will initiate and drive the consultations and amend the national legislation to bring it in line with the CRC? Which organisation will conduct the research and provide the information and education to all stakeholders? Who will consult with minors when developing legislation, policies and programmes and when designing and applying appropriate safeguards? Who will enforce these measures and provide children with access to justice, effective remedies and appropriate reparations and ensure compliance by the business sector? Who will develop the ethical codes for the industry?

Conclusion
It is not a surprise that video game publishers seek to safeguard their lucrative financial practices. Nor is it a surprise that these practices are causing great harm to our young people … What is a surprise, however, is our inaction in the face of this harm. 361 The availability of and participation in video games in South Africa is a reality. 362 This extends to video games with loot boxes. This article set out the concept of a loot box, the type of loot boxes in existence, as well as the problems and concerns pertaining to them. The focus has been on three main concerns, namely the lack of information provided about the loot boxes by the developers, the possible harmfulness thereof to minors, and the relation of loot boxes to gambling, their propensity to cause addiction, and the possibility that they infringe on existing gambling statutes. 363 The article has given an overview of the non-regulatory and regulatory responses to these concerns by the industry. It further noted the approaches in foreign jurisdictions and suggestions by industry experts. In short, there is no universal and global approach to address the concerns about loot box. There has been a slight shift within the industry towards awareness, 364 resulting in some changes being made (some voluntarily and some in response to pressure) and the issuing of a call for self-regulation through the adoption of ethical guidelines. 365 The industry is also active in the age classification of the games accepted in many jurisdictions, 366  changes and calls are voluntary, and enforcement is impossible. Selfregulation is unlikely to happen on a universal and uniform scale.
As the industry is not forthcoming in dealing with these concerns effectively, there is agreement amongst experts that some state regulation is warranted. The difficulty is that the responses to date have not been uniform. 367 Some jurisdictions focus on the labelling and classification of the games and others on the financial transactions, whilst yet others have adopted specific legislation to deal with a few of the concerns. In Western countries the debate around loot boxes surrounds the question whether it is a form of gambling. Most of these jurisdictions distinguish between non-tradable and tradable loot boxes. It is accepted that non-tradable loot boxes do not constitute gambling, but jurisdictions have different outcomes for tradable loot boxes. Most agree, however, that more research is required before action can be taken. Even where loot boxes, particularly tradable loot boxes, fall within the definition of gambling, enforcement is inconsistent except in a few instances. In addition, there is no agreement on whether the use of consumer protection remedies would not be more appropriate in this context than the use of gambling legislation.
This brings us to the legal position of loot boxes in South Africa and how the concerns about loot boxes should be addressed. It is submitted that a holistic approach should be adopted that includes all the stakeholders. Although there is little evidence of the South African industry's involvement in possible self-regulation or classifications of games, the country does benefit from the global industry regarding self-regulation and classification initiatives as well as initiatives from global storefront and other companies.
What more can be done? Amending the Films and Publications Regulations to ensure the proper labelling of games and the education of stakeholders in line with international trends would be akin to plucking low-hanging fruit. Obviously the existing gambling provisions could be enforced, including the blocking of relevant websites. Government could proactively consider levying an additional tax to fund any information and educational programmes required and/or tax breaks for companies developing ethical games.
The CRC obligations to protect minors would require a more comprehensive and detailed approach, however. It is submitted that the South African Law Reform Commission would be the appropriate body to research all of the concerns pertaining to loot boxes and to make suggestions for the way forward, including industry guidelines and legislative changes. This would also address the communication concerns, as their processes include comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. Whatever the suggestions they might make, they should ensure the protection of minors, which will not be an easy task.
The Abarbanel warning summarises the complexity of the situation: Research, legislation and regulation often cannot keep up with the speed of technological change … The emphasis for all parties, be they government, industry, or consumer, should be on the need for self-education and due diligence in understanding the complexity and nuance of games and gambling. 368