ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2026
Unpacking non-transparency: Most physical trading card game and collectible sports card packs failed to disclose probabilities for winning rare prizes.
Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Physical card packs are gambling-like products offering consumers random prizes. Most contain cards of little value worth less than the purchase price of the pack itself, but a few contain rare and highly valuable cards. Previous research has found a weak positive association between physical card pack spending and problem gambling, suggesting that vulnerable consumers may experience financial harm and that these physical gambling-like products may pose addiction-like risks. Unlike traditional gambling, card packs are not an adult-only product and are widely purchased by children too. Worldwide, there is currently no dedicated card pack regulation. Notwithstanding, basic consumer law applies, requiring companies to disclose and not hide important information about the product: specifically, the odds of obtaining different prizes. Methods: We sampled 50 card packs in Hong Kong representing popular products consumers buy to assess whether they disclosed winning probabilities. Results: The vast majority (80.0%) failed to provide any probability disclosure information or relevant hyperlinks on their physical packaging. The other 20.0% that provided probability disclosures failed to give sufficient details and were, occasionally, difficult to find and misleading. No pack (0.0%) allowed the consumer to know their odds of getting every individual card. Discussion and conclusions: In the absence of gambling law and dedicated regulations, consumer law should be better enforced against gambling-like products (including physical Pokémon card packs, Labubu blind boxes, and video game loot boxes) to mandate transparency and enable consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. The potential harms posed by novel gambling-like products should be further studied and properly regulated.
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.