The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that the loot boxes in the FIFA games do not constitute gambling as they do require some skill.
GamesMarkt reports that the justices in Vienna have decided that the specific game mechanic in FIFA Ultimate Team is not gambling, but they also state that loot boxes can be gambling. To be specific, loot boxes and the games they are part of need to be taken together on this matter.
“In this video game, despite the random allocation of individual digital content from the Packs, the human player can use their own skills to control the course of the game with a probability suitable for success, thus establishing a rational expectation of winning,” the court concluded.
The case was brought against Electronic Arts and Sony by a class of gamers – with the backing of Austrian litigation funder Padronus – who spent a combined €20,000 on loot boxes in FIFA titles.
“We consider the judgment to be legally flawed and will wait to see whether other judges of the Supreme Court share a different view regarding our other pending cases,” Padronus managing director Richard Eibl said.
The organisation says that it has other cases against both EA and Sony on the same topic pending judgment by the Supreme Court.
An EA spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz that “We welcome the decision from the Austrian Supreme Court confirming that EA SPORTS FC and the FC Ultimate Team mode do not constitute gambling. The decision, which is final, brings much needed clarity to both industry and Austrian players.”
Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, legal researcher Leon Xiao said that this judgment is “likely to cause Austrian legislators to want to make stricter laws” if their concerns regarding loot boxes persist, “now that this gambling law line didn’t provide consumers with redress”.
He added that the gambling laws that are in effect in most countries were written without concepts such as loot boxes in mind, meaning that “it is not surprising that gambling law is unable to effectively deal” with these concerns.
“New legislation is not necessarily required because pre-existing contract and consumer law and advertising regulations already apply and could already provide some assistance,” he said. “However, consumer law is not being effectively enforced, so companies don’t follow those rules.”
A similar ruling was reached in the Netherlands back in 2022, something that Xiao attributes to the country having similar gambling laws to Austria. He also added that UK gambling law differs considerably from those two countries, pointing to the recent case against former Jagex developer Andrew Lakeman, in which it has been ruled that in-game virtual currency that can be transferred between players does, in fact, constitute “property”.
“[This] strongly supports stricter actions against loot boxes whose prizes can be transferred,” he said.
This story was updated with to add comment from EA.
