ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Widespread Suspected Illegal Advertising of Paid Loot Boxes and Social Casino Games in Belgium: Empowered by the EU Digital Services Act to Assess Compliance Using Meta's Ad Repository.European addiction research · 2026Article
- Can consumers accurately identify loot boxes and loot box receipts?Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Better than industry self-regulation: Compliance of mobile games with newly adopted and actively enforced loot box probability disclosure law in South Korea.Acta psychologica · 2025Article
- Widespread illegal video game advertising in the UK and South Korea: Many adverts not disclosing loot box presence found using Meta's ad repository.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2025Article
- Impact of Spanish gambling regulations on online gambling behavior and marketing strategies.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Non-compliance with and non-enforcement of UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a longitudinal study on poor implementation.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Associations between Marketing Exposure, In-game Purchases, Problem Gaming, Simulated Gambling, and Psychological Distress among Adolescents.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Article
- The Mediating Role of Problematic Use of Loot Boxes Between Internet Gaming Disorder and Online Gambling Disorder: Cross-Sectional Analytical Study.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 2: exploratory analyses of complex relationships.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Loot boxes in video games are a form of in-game transactions with randomized elements. Concerns have been raised about loot boxes' similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g. overspending). Recognizing players' and parents' concerns, in mid-2020, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) announced that games containing loot boxes or any forms of in-game transactions with randomized elements will be marked by a new label stating 'In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)'. The same label has also been adopted by the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) and thereby assigned to games available on digital storefronts, e.g. the Google Play Store. The label is intended to provide more information to consumers and allow them to make more informed purchasing decisions. This measure is not legally binding and has been adopted as industry self-regulation or corporate social responsibility. Previous research has suggested that industry self-regulation might not be effectively complied with due to conflicting commercial interests. Compliance with the ESRB's, PEGI's and IARC's loot box presence warning label was assessed in two studies. The first study found that 60.6% of all games labelled by either the ESRB or PEGI (or 16.1% using a more equitable methodology) were not labelled by the other. The majority of the inconsistencies were caused by the ESRB refusing to apply the measure retroactively. Five instances where one age rating organization culpably failed to accurately identify loot box presence were identified (although only two cases were admitted by the relevant organization). Generally, with newly released games, consumers can rely on the PEGI and ESRB labels. PEGI has retroactively labelled many older games, meaning that consumers can expect the labelling to be accurate. However, due to the ESRB's policies (which it has refused to improve), North American consumers cannot rely on the label for many older games containing loot boxes, unlike their European counterparts. The data suggest that the loot box issue is far more pressing on mobile platforms than console/PC platforms. The second study found that 71.0% of popular games containing loot boxes on the Google Play Store (whose age rating system is regulated through IARC) did not display the label and were therefore non-compliant. The IARC's current policy on the Google Play Store is that only games submitted for rating after February 2022 are required to be labelled. This policy (which the IARC has refused to improve) means that most popular and high-grossing games can be, and presently are, marketed without the label, thus significantly reducing the measure's scope and potential benefit. The Apple App Store still does not allow loot box presence to be disclosed. At present, consumers and parents cannot rely on this self-regulatory measure to provide accurate information as to loot box presence for mobile games. Due to their immense scale, the mobile markets pose regulatory and enforcement challenges that PEGI admits are not yet resolved. The mere existence of this measure cannot be used to justify the non-regulation of loot boxes by governments, given the poor compliance and doubtful efficacy (even if when complied with satisfactorily). Improvements to the existing age rating systems are proposed. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E6QBM (date of in-principle acceptance: 12 January 2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.