adminFIFA loot boxes are not gambling under a recent ruling by Austria’s Supreme Court, which considered the mechanics of FIFA Ultimate Team as part of the game as a whole. The decision addresses a specific game mode and does not establish that every loot box is outside gambling laws.
Image credit: Electronic Arts/FIFA
Why the court ruled FIFA loot boxes are not gambling
The case concerned packs in FIFA Ultimate Team, which contain digital items assigned at random. The court concluded that, although players do not know exactly what a pack contains before opening it, their skill can influence how a match unfolds. In the court’s view, this created a reasonable prospect of winning through skill, so the game mechanic did not meet the definition of gambling in this case.
A key part of the reasoning was that loot boxes should not automatically be assessed in isolation. Their role in the surrounding game matters. As a practical point, this means the ruling should be read narrowly: it concerns the relationship between random pack contents and gameplay in the titles considered, rather than every game that sells randomized digital items.
What the lawsuit involved
A group of players brought the claim against Electronic Arts and Sony with support from Austrian litigation funder Padronus. The players said they had collectively spent €20,000 on loot boxes in FIFA games.
Padronus managing director Richard Eibl criticized the decision, calling it legally flawed. The organization said it had other cases involving EA and Sony on the same subject awaiting decisions by the Supreme Court. EA welcomed the ruling, saying it confirmed that EA SPORTS FC and FC Ultimate Team do not constitute gambling under the decision.
Possible consequences for loot box regulation
Legal researcher Leon Xiao said the ruling could encourage Austrian lawmakers to consider stricter rules if concerns about loot boxes continue. He noted that many gambling laws were written before loot boxes became common, which can make it difficult to address them using existing definitions.
Xiao also pointed to consumer protection, contract and advertising rules as possible ways to address some concerns without necessarily creating a new gambling law. However, he argued that those protections need to be enforced effectively to make a difference.
For players, the practical takeaway is to check what a purchase offers, whether the contents are randomized and what spending controls are available. The Austrian ruling does not itself determine how consumer rules apply to every game or transaction.
How the ruling compares with other countries
A similar decision was reached in the Netherlands in 2022. Xiao linked the outcomes in Austria and the Netherlands to similarities in their gambling laws, while noting that UK law differs considerably.
He also referred to a UK case involving former Jagex developer Andrew Lakeman, in which transferable in-game virtual currency was treated as “property.” Xiao said that approach could support stronger action against loot boxes when prizes can be transferred between players. This comparison highlights why legal outcomes can depend on a game’s design and the laws of the country involved.
What the FIFA loot boxes decision means
The Austrian Supreme Court’s decision is significant, but limited: it found that the FIFA Ultimate Team mechanic in the case was not gambling because player skill also affected the chance of success. It did not rule that loot boxes can never fall under gambling or consumer protection rules. Anyone assessing FIFA loot boxes—or similar features in another game—should consider both the mechanics and the applicable local law.
