The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that the box-opening mechanism in the EA SPORTS FC series of games does not constitute gambling because the participation process requires players to have certain operating skills. According to reports from German gaming industry media, judges at the Supreme Court of Vienna ruled that this specific game mechanism in FIFA Ultimate Team mode is not gambling, but also pointed out that the loot box mechanism may constitute gambling in some cases. Specifically, determining whether the box-opening mechanism is gambling requires comprehensive consideration in conjunction with the overall game to which it belongs.
The court pointed out in its decision: "In this electronic game, although the various digital contents in the player package are randomly distributed, the players can rely on their own skills to control the game process in a way that has the possibility of success, and thus form a reasonable expectation of winning."
This lawsuit was jointly filed against EA and Sony by a group of players. Austrian litigation funding agency Padronas provided support for the lawsuit. These players spent a total of 20,000 euros on the unboxing of EA SPORTS FC series games.
Padronas managing director Richard Able said: "We believe this decision is legally flawed and will now wait to see whether other Supreme Court justices will rule differently in our other pending cases."
The agency revealed that other lawsuits it filed against EA and Sony surrounding the same dispute are still pending before the Austrian Supreme Court.
A spokesman for EA said: "We welcome this decision by the Austrian Supreme Court, which confirms that EA Sports Football Club and its Ultimate Team model do not constitute gambling. This final decision brings much-needed clarity to the gaming industry and the Austrian player community."
In an interview with Game Industry Network, legal researcher Xiao Lyon said that if Austrian legislators’ concerns about the loot box mechanism have not been eliminated, and the judgment related to the gambling law fails to provide relief for consumers, then this ruling “may prompt Austrian legislators to introduce more stringent relevant laws.”
He also added that when the current gambling-related laws in most countries were formulated, emerging models such as loot boxes were not taken into consideration, so "it is not surprising that gambling laws cannot effectively solve such problems."
"In fact, it is not necessarily necessary to introduce new legislation, because the existing contract law, consumer rights protection law and advertising regulations are applicable to such situations, and could have provided consumers with certain rights protection support." He said, "But the problem is that the consumer rights protection law has not been effectively implemented, and relevant companies will not comply with these regulations."
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands had made a similar judgment as early as 2022. Shao Lyon believes that this is because there are many similarities between the gambling-related laws of the Netherlands and the relevant laws of Austria. He also pointed out that there are significant differences between the gambling laws in the UK and those in Austria and the Netherlands, and cited the recent case against Andrew Lakeman, the former developer of Jaggers Game Studio, as an example: In this case, the court ruled that game virtual currency that can be transferred between players actually has the attribute of "property".
"This ruling provides strong legal support for stricter regulatory measures on the mechanism of transferable prizes," said Chaullion.