This article discusses the lack of strict enforcement of online gambling regulations in the Chinese esports industry despite the establishment of relevant regulations. The lack of criminal or administrative penalties for online gambling related to esports is demonstrated through three examples in this article: Chinese esports teams accepting sponsorships from online gambling companies, the lack of punishment for Chinese esports players involved in match-fixing, and the failure to prosecute an esports tycoon for running an online gambling house. The article argues that online gambling companies use cultural reframing strategies to avoid monitoring systems and that the political and economic impact of esports in China may contribute to this lack of enforcement. This article sheds light on the potential implications of the lack of regulation of online gambling in the Chinese esports industry.
Research article
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published November, 2023pp. 445-459
In March 2022, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, found that loot boxes in the Ultimate Team Mode of the FIFA video games (FUT) published by Electronic Arts (EA) did not contravene Dutch gambling law, contrary to the Netherlands Gambling Authority's (Kansspelautoriteit) previous 2018 interpretation of the law and overruling a previous 2020 judgment that confirmed the Kansspelautoriteit's aforementioned interpretation. The Council of State decided that the player packs (i.e., loot boxes) in the FUT mode cannot be considered a separate game that is capable of being assessed on its own as to whether it constitutes a “game of chance” and therefore potentially contravenes gambling regulation. Instead, the overarching video game containing the loot boxes should be assessed more broadly as to whether that game constitutes a “game of chance” or a “game of skill.” We argue that the Council of State's unique approach of not considering the loot boxes separately as to whether they constitute gambling underplayed the importance of paid loot boxes as a monetization method in contemporary video games. The Council of State unsatisfyingly built its main argument on the supposed “importance” of non-paid loot boxes. Further, the Council of State's overreliance on how the so-called “majority” of players experience the video game importantly failed to account for the experiences of the small minority of high-spending players who are most at risk of potential harms and in need of consumer protection. The Council of State's interpretation of Dutch gambling law should not necessarily be relied on by other countries considering the regulation of loot boxes. Dutch legislators should consider whether this restrictive interpretation, which has made future application of gambling regulation to loot boxes highly unlikely, was intended and may require legislative amendments.1
Research article
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published November, 2023pp. 460-478
Highlighted by recent changes enacted by both Tennessee and Ohio, states are continuing to figure out how to best maximize the bang for their buck when it comes to collecting tax revenue from sports wagering operators.
Research article
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published November, 2023pp. 482-483