Austrian Supreme Court Declares FIFA Loot Boxes Not Gambling in Landmark European Ruling

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) issued its definitive ruling on 18 December 2025, in case 6 Ob 228/24h, OGH, holding that loot boxes embedded in skill-based video games fall outside gambling regulation when considered part of the overall gaming experience. The decision overturns two earlier Austrian court judgments that had ordered Electronic Arts and Sony to refund thousands of euros to a player who spent approximately EUR 20,000 on FIFA Ultimate Team packs between October 2017 and October 2021. This ruling aligns Austria with the Netherlands, where the Council of State reached an identical conclusion in March 2022, while placing both jurisdictions in stark contrast to Belgium’s 2018 determination that loot boxes constitute illegal gambling.

The holistic assessment principle transforms European loot box analysis

The OGH’s core innovation lies in its rejection of analysing loot boxes as standalone gambling transactions. Writing for the Court, the judges established that

“Lootboxen in der vom Kläger gespielten Videospiel-Fußballsimulation sind nicht losgelöst vom restlichen Videospiel zu beurteilen“

loot boxes in the video game football simulation cannot be assessed in isolation from the rest of the game. Instead, the game must be examined “in its entirety” (in seiner Gesamtheit) to determine whether it meets gambling criteria. 

This analytical framework proved fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Austrian gambling law, codified in Section 1(1) of the Glücksspielgesetz (GSpG), defines gambling as

“a game in which the decision on the game outcome depends exclusively or predominantly on chance” (ein Spiel, bei dem die Entscheidung über das Spielergebnis ausschließlich oder vorwiegend vom Zufall abhängt). 

For “mixed games” combining skill and chance elements, Austrian courts apply what might be termed the “rational expectation test”: whether abstract controllability of causal factors can establish legitimate rational expectations of winning (berechtigte rationale Erwartung).

The OGH found that FIFA players maintain such controllability:

“Der Spieler kann im vorliegenden Videospiel trotz der vom Zufall abhängigen Zuteilung einzelner digitaler Inhalte aus den Lootboxen durch seine eigenen Fertigkeiten, nämlich die von ihm gewählte Taktik und Strategie sowie seine Geschicklichkeit beim Bedienen des Controllers, den Spielverlauf mit einer für den Spielerfolg geeigneten Wahrscheinlichkeit steuern.”

Despite random allocation of pack contents, players control match outcomes through their chosen tactics, strategy, and controller skill with sufficient probability to establish rational win expectations.

Lower courts had reached opposite conclusions on identical statutory language

The procedural history reveals dramatic judicial disagreement. The District Court of Hermagor (Bezirksgericht Hermagor) ruled on 26 February 2023, that FIFA loot boxes constituted “konzessionspflichtige Ausspielung von Glücksspiel“, gambling requiring a license, ordering Sony to refund EUR 338.26. That judgment became legally binding after Sony declined to appeal. A separate case at the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien) in August 2023 similarly classified FIFA packs as illegal gambling, ordering EA and Sony to pay EUR 10,800 to another plaintiff.

The Vienna Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) reversed course on September 30, 2024, reasoning that the plaintiff had not acquired FUT packs with the intent to profit but solely for in-game use, and that FIFA constitutes a skill-based game rather than a game of chance. The OLG Wien permitted appeal to the Supreme Court, creating the conditions for nationwide precedent.

The OGH’s December 2025 affirmance means the holistic assessment principle now binds all Austrian courts. Three additional factors informed the decision: (a) the objective purpose of acquiring loot boxes (typically in-game use rather than economic gain), (b) the technical embedding of purchase processes within gameplay, and (c) the lack of technical transferability of digital content outside the video game ecosystem.

Belgium’s 2018 determination remains Europe’s strictest approach

Belgium’s Gaming Commission (Kansspelcommissie) reached the opposite conclusion in April 2018 after investigating FIFA 18, Overwatch, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Star Wars Battlefront II. Director Peter Naessens led an investigation applying the Belgian Gambling Act of 7 May 1999, which defines games of chance through four constitutive elements: a game element requiring active participation, a wager (including in-game currency purchased with real money), chances of wins and losses, and an element of chance, even as a secondary factor.

Justice Minister Koen Geens publicly called for an EU-wide loot box ban following the Commission’s findings. The Belgian framework imposes severe penalties: imprisonment of six months to five years, fines of EUR 800 to EUR 800,000, with penalties doubling when violations involve minors under 18. Brussels’ public prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into EA in September 2018. 

EA announced on 29 January 2019, that it would cease FIFA Points sales in Belgium, stating: “While we are taking this action, we do not agree with Belgian authorities’ interpretation of the law.” Other publishers, including Blizzard Entertainment, Valve, 2K Games, Nintendo, and Psyonix, removed or restricted loot box purchases for Belgian players. Blizzard declined to publish Diablo Immortal in Belgium entirely.

The Belgian approach differs fundamentally from Austrian and Dutch law because prizes need not constitute “money or money’s worth”, having value to the player suffices. However, enforcement has proven problematic: a July 2022 academic study found 82% of the 100 highest-grossing iPhone games in Belgium still contained paid loot boxes, with 80.2% of games rated suitable for minors including the mechanic. The Commission’s determination remains largely unenforced.

A January 2025 case, LS v. Apple, before the Antwerp Enterprise Court, tested platform liability when a player claimed EUR 67,813 spent on loot boxes in “Top War: Battle Game.” The court found that Apple may have violated gambling legislation by hosting the game and referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Apple settled on 2 June 2025, prompting the withdrawal of the CJEU referral.

Dutch Council of State established the skill-game integration defense in 2022

The Netherlands pioneered and then retreated from strict loot box enforcement. The Dutch Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit, KSA) published investigation findings on 19 April 2018,  identifying four games as violating the Betting and Gaming Act (Wet op de kansspelen): FIFA 18, DOTA 2, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, and Rocket League. The KSA’s legal test required that prizes can be won, participants cannot influence the winner, and contents have economic value through transferability—whether within the game or through third-party platforms.

The KSA imposed administrative orders on Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl in 2019, threatening maximum penalties of EUR 5 million each (EUR 10 million total) with weekly fines of EUR 500,000. The District Court of The Hague upheld the KSA position on 15 October 2020, confirming FIFA Packs constitute “games of chance” and giving EA three weeks to comply.

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, the Netherlands’ highest administrative court, overturned this determination on 9 March 2022. The Council’s reasoning parallels the Austrian OGH: player packs are “not a separate game but part of the broader FUT mode,” which is a game of skill. The Court noted that 92% of packs are obtained through gameplay rather than purchases, and that black market trading focuses on complete accounts rather than individual pack contents. The majority of players “experience FIFA as a game of skill.”

The Council established that loot boxes escape Dutch gambling regulation when integrated into a video game in which the winner is decided by skill, loot boxes are earned and opened within the game, and most loot boxes are obtained through gameplay. Following six Dutch political parties submitting a parliamentary motion demanding stricter regulation, legislative solutions remain under discussion.

The UK government rejected the gambling classification despite parliamentary recommendations

The United Kingdom’s regulatory approach demonstrates deliberate restraint despite significant political pressure. The UK Gambling Commission determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act 2005 because in-game items typically cannot be “cashed out”—the statute requires prizes to be “money or money’s worth” under Section 6(5)(a). Where items remain confined to in-game use, they fall outside licensable gambling activity.

The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee challenged this position in September 2019, stating:

“We consider loot boxes that can be bought with real-world money and do not reveal their contents in advance to be games of chance played for money’s worth.”

The Committee recommended regulations under Section 6 of the Gambling Act to classify loot boxes as gambling and described game company representatives as “wilfully obtuse” and demonstrating “a lack of honesty and transparency.”

The House of Lords Gambling Committee intensified pressure in July 2020 with its report “Gambling Harm, Time for Action,” declaring:

“If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling.”

The Committee urged ministers to make regulations “without waiting for the government’s wider review of the Gambling Act.”

The government launched a Call for Evidence in September 2020 but announced in July 2022 that loot boxes would not be brought within gambling legislation. Ministers cited insufficient causal evidence linking loot boxes to gambling harms, concerns about “unintended consequences,” and opted instead for industry-led self-regulation through UK Interactive Entertainment (Ukie). Ukie published 11 industry guidance principles in July 2023, including age-gating for under-18s without parental consent and probability disclosures.

A June 2025 study published in Royal Society Open Science found “widespread non-compliance and non-existent enforcement” of these voluntary measures: only 23.5% of games disclosed loot box presence, no games used effective age verification, and non-compliant games remained available six months after being reported. Researchers concluded that “stricter regulation of loot boxes must be adopted as the industry self-regulation experiment has failed again.” 

German youth protection law integrates loot boxes into age rating assessments

Germany occupies the middle ground, neither classifying loot boxes as gambling nor leaving them unregulated. The Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) requires a stake of “not insignificant assets,” a prize with real monetary value, and outcomes based on chance—criteria most loot boxes fail to satisfy since virtual items typically lack clear external monetary value.

The Commission for the Protection of Youth in the Media (Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz, KJM) issued guidance in March 2018, noting that loot boxes may violate youth protection advertising laws prohibiting direct appeals to minors to purchase products (Section 6(2) No. 1 JMStV) or advertising that exploits minors’ inexperience (Section 6(4) JMStV).

March 2021 amendments to the Youth Protection Act (Jugendschutzgesetz) brought loot boxes within age rating considerations. Section 10b JuSchG requires that mechanisms including “random-based rewards” be factored into ratings, while Section 6a obligates providers to implement preventive measures against “cost traps and gambling-like elements.” The Entertainment Software Self-Regulation (USK) implemented new procedural guidelines from 1 January 2023, allowing loot box presence to trigger higher age ratings when implementations may “impair the development of children and young people.” Games with aggressive monetisation may receive 18+ ratings, restricting advertising and preventing sales to minors.

French and Spanish regulators pursue distinct regulatory pathways

France’s gambling authority ARJEL (now ANJ) concluded in June 2018 that loot boxes are “generally not gambling” because French law requires “expectation of monetary gain”—a criterion virtual items typically fail to meet. However, ARJEL identified that loot boxes would constitute gambling “where the player has the possibility to resell in real currency prizes won in the form of virtual objects, either on the site of the game itself, or on a dedicated site.” The regulator expressed concern that loot boxes “undermine gambling public policy objectives” and may create “habits and reflexes” introducing children to gambling, but declined enforcement in favor of “combined and coordinated European analysis.”

Spain’s DGOJ (Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego) launched a public consultation in March 2021 on whether loot boxes should require standalone regulation, gambling classification, or prohibition. The Ministry of Social Rights confirmed in 2024 that draft legislation will categorize certain loot boxes as gambling and ban access for under-18s. Proposed regulations include advertising restrictions (broadcast windows only, 1 am-5 am), transparent probability disclosures, costs displayed in euros rather than virtual currency, and self-exclusion schemes. However, June 2024 updates revealed that draft Article 5 will regulate only “embedded-embedded” loot boxes where prizes can be traded for real money—approximately 20% of the market—leaving most mobile games unaffected. 

European Parliament advocates for stricter protections amid regulatory fragmentation

The European Parliament has repeatedly called for common European approaches without achieving harmonisation. A July 2020 study commissioned by Parliament, “Loot boxes in online games and their effect on consumers,” recommended consumer protection frameworks rather than gambling regulation. The January 2023 report “Consumer Protection in Online Video Games: A European Single Market Approach” urged the Commission to assess whether existing consumer law is sufficient and to submit legislative proposals if not.

A November 2025 resolution escalated Parliament’s position, calling on the Commission to “outlaw loot boxes when they provoke gambling-like behaviour in children” and to impose “default bans on most harmful addictive practices for minors.”  However, gambling remains outside EU competence, member states regulate independently, limiting Commission authority to consumer protection frameworks under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

The European Commission’s Digital Fairness Fitness Check currently reviews whether existing directives adequately address loot box concerns, including virtual currency confusion, bundling practices, and “pay-to-skip” mechanics. Stakeholder suggestions include banning loot box sales to minors and requiring in-game purchases to be off by default.

Academic research documents strong correlations between loot boxes and problem gambling

Psychological research has established robust associations between loot box engagement and gambling-related harms. David Zendle (University of York) and Paul Cairns published foundational survey research in PLOS ONE (2018), finding that among 7,422 gamers, the link between loot box spending and problem gambling (η² = 0.054) was 13.5 times stronger than the correlation between problem gambling and other microtransactions (η² = 0.004). Problem gamblers spent a mean of USD 38.24 monthly on loot boxes compared to USD 11.14 for non-problem gamblers. A 2019 replication study with 1,172 blinded participants confirmed these findings.

Research on adolescents proves particularly concerning. Zendle, Meyer, and Over (2019) found in a sample of 1,155 participants aged 16-18 that the loot box-problem gambling correlation was stronger in adolescents (η² = 0.120) than in adults. Hing et al. (2022) documented that loot box purchasing increased odds of problem gambling 3.7 to 6.0 times among Australian adolescents aged 12-17, even controlling for monetary gambling participation.

Aaron Drummond and James Sauer published an influential analysis in Nature Human Behaviour (2018) evaluating 22 games against psychologist Mark Griffiths’ five criteria for gambling equivalence. They found 45% of games met all five criteria, with all loot boxes operating on variable ratio reinforcement schedules, the same mechanism driving slot machine engagement, producing the highest response rates and greatest resistance to behavioral extinction.

A 2021 meta-analysis by Garea et al. examining 15 studies found mean effect size r = 0.26 (small-to-moderate, clinically relevant), with 87% of studies reporting positive associations. Critically, research by Close et al. (2021) found a significant correlation between problem gambling and loot box spending (ρ = 0.33) but no significant correlation between spending and earnings (ρ = 0.02)—suggesting high-spending “whales” are predominantly problem gamblers rather than wealthy individuals.

FIFA Ultimate Team generates billions in annual revenue for Electronic Arts

FIFA Ultimate Team represents one of gaming’s most successful monetisation systems. EA’s “live services” revenue, predominantly Ultimate Team modes across FIFA, Madden NFL, and NHL, reached USD 5.5 billion in fiscal year 2023, constituting 74% of EA’s total revenue. Only 25% of the company’s revenue now comes from game sales. Ultimate Team revenue grew from USD 587 million in FY2015 to approximately USD 1.62 billion by FY2021, with projections reaching USD 4.4 billion by FY2025.

Pack probability disclosures, mandated since FIFA 19, reveal the system’s mathematics. Premium Gold Packs guarantee at least one Gold player (75+ rating), but special cards, Icons, Team of the Week players, often appear at rates below 1%. EA calculates probabilities through simulated pack openings but does not disclose individual card weights for ratings between 75 and 88.

The pay-to-win controversy centres on competitive play. At the FUT Champions Cup 2019, average team costs reached 32 million coins, equivalent to approximately USD 27,000 in FIFA Points according to FUT Economist analysis. A 2021 viral calculation by content creator ScudzTV found that building a “dream team” would require 22,000 hours of grinding or USD 50,000 in pack purchases. Professional FIFA player Stefano Pinna of Belgium described the format as “extremely ‘pay to win’…players are being forced to invest large sums of money.”

EA introduced Preview Packs in June 2021, allowing players to see pack contents before purchasing with 24-hour refresh timers. CEO Andrew Wilson reported increased engagement and higher pack sales following implementation, suggesting transparency may paradoxically enhance monetization.

Major litigation tests gambling classification across multiple jurisdictions

Class action litigation proceeds in multiple jurisdictions. Sutherland v. Electronic Arts Inc. in British Columbia was certified on 5 December 2024, by Justice Margot Fleming, naming EA, 2K Games, Activision Blizzard, WB Games, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Epic Games, and others as defendants. The certified class alleges violations of Canada’s Criminal Code (unlicensed gaming operations), the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, and the Infants Act.

In the United States, Kevin Ramirez v. Electronic Arts Inc. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:20-cv-05672) alleges FIFA Ultimate Team packs constitute “slot machines or devices” under California Penal Code section 330(b)(d). The plaintiff claims to have spent over USD 600 on loot boxes and characterises packs as having “all the hallmarks of a Las Vegas-style slot machine.”

Platform liability claims have generally failed. Taylor v. Apple and Coffee v. Google (both N.D. Cal.) were dismissed for lack of standing and because virtual items do not constitute “thing of value” for gambling purposes under California law. However, dicta in Coffee suggested outcomes might differ if prizes could be traded outside games.

Epic Games settled Canadian loot box claims for approximately CAD 2.75 million, with all eligible claims paid. Separately, Epic agreed to USD 520 million in FTC settlements covering privacy violations (USD 275 million—the largest FTC rule violation penalty ever) and dark patterns causing unauthorised purchases (USD 245 million in consumer refunds). By June 2025, nearly USD 200 million had been distributed to affected consumers.

The Belgian LS v. Apple case, where a player claimed EUR 67,813 in loot box spending, settled in June 2025 after initial court findings that Apple potentially violated gambling legislation by hosting games with illegal loot boxes.

Consumer advocacy groups intensify pressure for regulatory intervention

The Norwegian Consumer Council’s 2022 report, “Insert Coin: How the Gaming Industry Exploits Consumers Using Loot Boxes,” provided comprehensive documentation of manipulative design practices, serving as the basis for coordinated European advocacy. BEUC, representing 20 consumer organizations across 18 European countries, called for additional regulation, publishing its “Game Over” report in 2024 and filing complaints with the European Commission.

In the United States, Fairplay (formerly Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood) and the Centre for Digital Democracy led a June 2022 FTC complaint against EA’s FIFA Ultimate Team, co-signed by 15 advocacy organisations, including the National Council on Problem Gambling. The complaint sought an investigation into how many children play FUT, age-verification practices, revenue from minor players, whether design techniques constitute “dark patterns,” and whether EA uses data-driven manipulation of odds.

Executive Director Josh Golin stated, “EA is exploiting children’s desire to compete with their friends.” Deputy Director Katharina Kopp of the Centre for Digital Democracy added:

“Children and teens are particularly harmed. Their time and attention is stolen from them, they’re financially exploited, and are purposely socialized to adopt gambling-like behaviors.”

Conclusion: Divergent national approaches create regulatory arbitrage opportunities

The Austrian OGH’s December 2025 ruling crystallises a fundamental analytical divide in European loot box regulation. Jurisdictions applying holistic assessment—examining whether overall gameplay is skill-based—consistently conclude that loot boxes escape gambling law. Austria and the Netherlands anchor this approach, with France and the UK effectively joining by deliberate non-intervention. Belgium remains isolated in classifying loot boxes as gambling, though enforcement failures undermine the practical significance of its determination.

The academic evidence documenting correlations between loot box engagement and problem gambling contrasts starkly with regulatory inaction. Meta-analyses consistently find positive associations, adolescent studies show heightened vulnerability, and “whale” research suggests revenue concentration among problem gamblers rather than wealthy consumers. Yet courts applying statutory gambling definitions focus on whether prizes constitute “money or money’s worth” and whether randomisation occurs within or outside skill-based gameplay—categories designed for traditional gambling that fit awkwardly onto digital monetisation systems.

The EU’s consumer protection pathway may ultimately prove more significant than gambling regulation. Parliament’s November 2025 call to “outlaw loot boxes when they provoke gambling-like behaviour in children” signals growing political will, while the Digital Fairness Fitness Check may identify gaps in existing directives. Spain’s pending legislation, Germany’s integration of age ratings, and ongoing Canadian litigation will test alternative regulatory approaches.

For esports competitors, the regulatory landscape creates uneven competitive conditions. Belgian professionals lost access to FIFA Points purchases while international competitors retained them. Tournament formats using players’ own Ultimate Teams embed monetisation advantages directly into the competition. Whether courts, regulators, or legislatures will ultimately address these competitive integrity concerns—or whether the industry’s Preview Packs and probability disclosures satisfy demands for transparency—remains the central unresolved question in European loot box law.

Image: 1010 Wien, Grete Rehor Park (Schmerlingplatz), Justizpalast | 2016-06 by Brigitte Rieser, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0