The UK Said Loot Boxes Were Not Gambling and Then Said They Were a Problem. Both Statements Are on the Record.
Traces the UK DCMS position from the 2017 call for evidence through the 2023 technical paper recommending age restrictions, noting the policy shift and the named reports it rests on, without editorialising the outcome. A documented policy walk-through.
A call for evidence that declined to call it gambling, and what followed instead.
Photo: DCMS building lit in red, white and blue on Brexit Day · Wikimedia Commons
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has produced two distinct official positions on loot boxes since 2017. The documents say what they say.
Photo: Blizzard Entertainment Logo · Wikimedia Commons
From Evidence Gathering to a Qualified Warning
The UK's formal engagement with loot boxes began in 2017, when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport — then operating as DCMS under its combined Digital, Culture, Media and Sport remit — opened a call for evidence on the social impacts of gambling. Loot boxes were part of that sweep, but the 2018 Gambling Act review that followed declined to reclassify them. The department's position, consistent with the Gambling Commission's existing interpretation, held that loot boxes did not meet the statutory definition of gambling under the Gambling Act 2005 ↗ because in-game items lacked real-world monetary value in a legally recognised sense.
Chronology
- 2005Gambling Act 2005 passes; establishes statutory definition that will govern later loot-box assessments
- 2017DCMS opens call for evidence on gambling's social impacts; loot boxes included in scope
- 2018Gambling Act review declines to reclassify loot boxes; Gambling Commission interpretation holds
- July 2020DCMS-commissioned independent review published; finds loot-box purchasing associated with problem gambling
- 2022DCMS publishes formal response; recommends age assurance and purchasing controls, no reclassification
That finding did not close the file. In 2020, DCMS commissioned an independent review specifically focused on loot boxes. The resulting report, published in July 2020 and compiled by a team led by researchers at universities including Wolverhampton, examined the peer-reviewed literature on loot box purchasing behaviour and its relationship to problem gambling. It found that purchase of loot boxes was associated with problem gambling even after controlling for general gambling involvement — a finding the department formally received and cited in subsequent communications.
The policy development that followed came in the form of a government response to its own call for evidence, published by DCMS. Without reclassifying loot boxes as gambling products, the document recommended that industry implement age assurance measures and purchasing controls, particularly to restrict access by children and young people. The government's stated preference was a voluntary industry-led approach backed by the threat of legislation if that approach proved inadequate. The published response ↗ set out those recommendations explicitly and named UKIE and other industry bodies as those expected to act.
Photo: Steam icon logo · Wikimedia Commons
What the record therefore shows is a deliberate sequencing: a legal determination that loot boxes fall outside existing gambling law, followed by an evidence-based acknowledgement that the behaviour they produce is correlated with gambling harm, followed by a policy recommendation that stops short of reclassification while nonetheless treating access controls as necessary. Whether that sequence represents regulatory pragmatism or a gap between evidence and law is a question the documents themselves leave open — they record the positions without resolving the tension between them.
The Belgian Gaming Commission's April 2018 ruling reached a harder conclusion on the same product category, a contrast the DCMS evidence review noted directly.