Whether loot boxes are gambling is a red herring

Arguing whether loot boxes are gambling is not a useful exercise by this point in time. Psychological research was justified (at least initially) in conceptualising loot box harms as similar to gambling harms. However, it does not follow that loot box regulation must be viewed through a gambling lens. This similarity should no longer distract us from taking action. Answering that question of whether loot boxes are gambling in the affirmative potentially could have been useful to quickly apply existing gambling law to address the loot box issue (when it was a novel issue), rather than to wait for dedicated regulatory responses to pass through protracted legislative processes. However, half a decade has passed since this issue first entered mainstream discourse. Preoccupation with the gambling law approach to loot box regulation overlooks the possibility of using other existing laws (e.g., consumer protection law) to regulate loot boxes and the potential harms of videogame monetisation (including those not involving randomisation) more broadly. Frankly, today, it matters little whether loot boxes are ‘gambling.’ The potential harms of loot boxes need to be addressed regardless of your answer to that question.