As issued the other legal decision to hurt the gaming sector, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna of Austria has excluded the FIFA Ultimate Team packs from the possibility of gambling in the country of Austria. This judgment is a triumph for the famous publisher of the FIFA video game series known as Electronic Arts (EA). It gives gamers an understanding on how loot boxes and similar in game purchases are rated within the country.
The decision of the court was based upon the following main factors. Firstly, it found out that players buy FIFA Ultimate Team packs for convenience and not to resell them for profit. Of course, this difference is essential in distinguishing these purchases from those of typical gambling endeavors. Furthermore, it was held that in the present case, the economic risk as a characteristic of a game of chance in terms of the Austrian Gaming Act is not applicable. Thus, FIFA Ultimate Team packs are even further removed from games of chance by definition.
A further blow that broke the camel’s back was the court’s failure to look at FIFA Ultimate Team packs as a part of the game. These packs cannot be viewed separately from FIFA, and that is not a game based on chance but on skill. The approach taken to determine whether electronic items bought in the middle of a game are properly evaluated might have a global implication for most other games in regard to the said feature.
This is especially so since the standardisation of its outcomes is lacking especially with regards to loot box related cases with lower courts within Austria. Since the Supreme Court of the country has not issued its judgment on this issue, the expected judgment shall lay down a course for the future cases across the jurisdictions and may give direction to other European countries to address the similar issues.
EA has cheered the observations of the court, claiming that it intends to present the consumers with a chance to make their choices, ensure that they get fair value for the games they buy, and have enjoyable experiences while at it. The firm stressed that microtransactions are explicit and, when used appropriately, allow consumers to choose how they want to interact with a game. This decision acknowledges the fact that such costs are incurred on a discretionary basis, and as observed, most participants do not incur such expenses at all.
The ruling in Austria echoes another from the Highest Administrative Court of the Netherlands, which also concluded that FUT is not violating Dutch anti-gambling legislation. All of these decisions indicate a change in the attitude of courts throughout Europe regarding loot boxes and mechanics similar to them, which may alleviate some of the growing pressure developing in the video game industry in recent years.
As moves to regulate loot boxes and in-game purchases gather momentum worldwide, the decision of this Austrian court might provide further legal precedents on this case elsewhere. This post alleges that calculating machines cannot be effectively regulated in modern video game mechanics, and traditional gambling laws may not fit anticompetitive features as easily as one may think. This has implications for future law-making and policy formulation of in-game purchases in Europe as well as other parts of the world.
