Mainland China's 2021 restrictions on under-18s' video game time were imposed when older 2019 restrictions already applied: Omitting the historical regulatory context is misleading.

Investigating the impacts of addiction policymaking following implementation is important. Effective policies should be considered for emulation elsewhere, whilst ineffective policies should be repealed. Zhou et al. (2024) reported how Mainland Chinese under-18s responded to the 2021 restrictions on their online videogame playtime, which were intended to curb online gaming addiction. However, Zhou et al. failed to mention that Mainland China had previously tried to achieve the same regulatory aim by imposing rules in 2019 that were more lenient than the 2021 rules but nonetheless restricted under-18s' gameplay time. These 2019 restrictions were neither acknowledged as crucial background in the introduction section nor accounted for by Zhou et al. when interpreting their results, thus giving readers the incorrect impression that the 2021 rules were the first ones introduced and that under-18s' gameplay time was not restricted at all prior to 2021. Importantly, Zhou et al.'s entire sample of young people therefore consisted not merely of 'heavy gamers' as they euphemistically described them as, but 'counterplayers' who actively contravened the 2019 rules. The misleading omission of this context is a major limitation and misrepresentation. The results should be interpreted accordingly and not overgeneralised.