January 14, 2022 – ‘Loot Box’ Class Action Against Apple Dismissed for Good
Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg has sided with Apple in dismissing for good the proposed class action that alleged the tech giant’s use of in-game “loot boxes” amounted to illegal gambling.
In a six-page order granting Apple’s motion to dismiss, Judge Seeborg summarized that the issues with the plaintiff’s initial lawsuit, which was dismissed with the opportunity to refile in March 2021, were not cured in her amended complaint. Although the prior dismissal order concluded that the plaintiff failed to alleged a “cognizable economic injury” as a result of Apple’s use of loot boxes, the amended lawsuit, the judge stated, offered no additional substantive factual allegations in support of a recognizable economic injury.
“Plaintiffs go on to argue the prior order was ‘incorrectly decided’ on this point and they ask that it be reconsidered,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have failed to show a basis for reconsideration.”
Further, the plaintiff’s claims that Apple’s use of loot boxes is both unlawful and unfair are not viable, according to the order. Judge Seeborg wrote that although the plaintiff charged that loot boxes are unlawful in that they violate California gambling device regulations, the consumer failed to offer any new substantive facts to distinguish the amended complaint from her previous allegations. Instead, the plaintiff merely presented her opposition to the dismissal as a policy argument rooted in the opinion that loot boxes have harmful effects and that governments and regulators worldwide will soon act on them, the document relays.
April 9, 2021 – Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
The plaintiffs in one of the proposed class actions detailed on this page have filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2021 in California’s Northern District Court, San Jose Division. The 74-page revised suit can be found here.
On March 29, an administrative motion was filed before the court to consider whether the lawsuit should be considered related to similar cases against Google over its use of loot boxes in games and whether certain video game content made available through the Google Play Store constitutes illegal gambling under various state laws. At least five lawsuits filed last month may be coupled together.
February 18, 2021 – Lawsuit Dismissed; Plaintiffs Allowed to Re-File
The proposed class action detailed on this page against Google has been dismissed, with the plaintiffs given leave to file an amended case.
In a 21-page order, found here, United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Google’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that the company is immune under the Communications Decency Act and cannot be held responsible for the sale of loot boxes by developers through the Play Store.
Judge Freeman wrote that even if loot boxes were found by the court to be illegal slot machines under California gambling laws, the plaintiffs “have alleged no more than Google’s ‘passive acquiescence in the misconduct of its users.’”
“Google cannot be held liable for merely allowing video game developers to provide apps to users through the Google Play store, as ‘providing third parties with neutral tools to create web content is considered to be squarely within the protections of [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.]’”
The plaintiffs have until March 12, 2021 to file an amended complaint, which cannot include any new claims or parties without the court’s permission.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Nearly identical lawsuits filed this week in California claim Apple, Inc. and Google LLC have knowingly allowed both adults and children to engage in illegal gambling through mobile games available on the App Store and Google Play.
More specifically, the lawsuits claim the defendants promote and generate revenue from customers’ in-app purchases of “loot boxes.” According to the cases, loot boxes—which are purchased using real money and offer the gamer a randomized chance of obtaining better weapons, player appearance (“skins”), or other in-game feature designed to enhance gameplay—operate as gambling devices that can create and reinforce addictive behaviors in players, particularly adolescents.
Loot boxes or loot crates “have all the hallmarks of a Las Vegas-style slot machine,” the lawsuits state, stressing that even though Apple and Google are not responsible for creating the games, both companies “profit handsomely” by marketing and selling the apps through their online app platforms, acting as agents for the developers, and taking a 30-percent cut of all the money spent by gamers.
What Are Loot Boxes?
Loot boxes, according to the suits, are in-app mechanisms that allow a gamer to purchase randomized virtual items. Typically, the best items, which can help a player advance in the game or enhance the game-playing experience, are the most difficult to obtain and the least likely to be received from the purchase of a loot box, the cases explain. Conversely, the suits say, most items obtained through loot boxes are “common” or undesirable because they are easy to obtain or because the player already has them.
In most cases, the suits explain, gamers must purchase loot boxes with real-world currency using a gift card or credit card on file with the player’s Apple or Google account. Minors can easily initiate and confirm a purchase without parental consent or knowledge, the cases add.
To further distance gamers from their use of real-world currency, many games require that players purchase virtual, in-game currency with “expensive-sounding” names such as gems or gold coins that can then be used to purchase loot boxes, the lawsuits say. Virtual currency, according to the complaints, is designed to disconnect players from the fact that they are spending real money and cause them to “lose contact with the real value” of what they’re buying.
Cases Claim Loot Boxes Rely on “Psychology of Gambling”
According to the cases, governments, regulators, and psychologists agree that loot boxes constitute gambling and reinforce addictive behavior, especially in children. The suits cite a paper titled “Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder,” in which professors Daniel King and Paul Delfabbro include the following description of loot boxes:
A loot box refers to an in‐game reward system that can be purchased repeatedly with real money to obtain a random selection of virtual items. The low probability of obtaining a desired item means that the player will have to purchase an indeterminate number of loot boxes to obtain the item. Loot boxes resemble gambling slot machines because they require no player skill and have a randomly determined outcome (i.e. prize).”
The lawsuits note that the mechanism of in-game loot boxes “relies heavily on the psychology of gambling,” with a build-up of anticipation, triumphant music, and bright lights and colors. Even after consistently receiving “disappointing” results, players maintain a belief that loot boxes will contain a desired item, the cases state, describing the experience as “a slot machine effect.”
The principle by which loot boxes manipulate the human mind, the suits say, is called “variable rate enforcement.” According to the complaints, “[i]t results in people quickly acquiring behaviors and repeating these behaviors frequently in hopes of receiving a reward.” The lawsuits explain that adolescents are especially vulnerable to this type of manipulation given they have low impulse control, are more inclined to risk-taking behaviors, are prone to addiction, and have little understanding of money and financial management. As the complaints put it:
Opening a Loot Box gives the player a rush; the moment of anticipation followed by release. The Loot Box mechanism has been proven to be effective on adults, and its effects are only intensified when used on minors who are more prone to engage in risk-taking behaviors, more prone to gambling addiction, and ‘are less equipped to critically appraise the value proposition of these schemes.’”
The cases stress that although Apple and Google are required to disclose the odds of winning a desirable item through a loot box, such disclosures are either not readily visible or are not understood by younger gamers. Moreover, the suits claim both Apple and Google are aware that the publication of the odds of winning is unlikely to deter slot machine users, much less the gamers using the defendants’ platforms.
According to the case, the odds of winning some of the best items are so low that a gamer may end up purchasing hundreds of loot boxes at a cost upward of $100 before obtaining such an item, and even then, “there is no guarantee.”
Examples of Loot Boxes
The two lawsuits detail the following examples of loot boxes within popular games:
Mario Kart Tour – Players can use in-game “Rubies” to purchase a “Pipe” that produces a random driver, Kart, or Glider.
FIFA Soccer – Players can use FIFA Ultimate Team (FUT) Coins to purchase “Card Packs” or “Player Packs” that feature a random assortment of players.
Roblox – Players can use “Robux” to purchase various forms of loot boxes depending on the game within the Roblox virtual world.
Brawl Stars – Players can use “Gems” to purchase “Brawl Boxes,” “Big Boxes,” or “Mega Boxes” that contain new brawlers.
Final Fantasy Brave Exvius – Players can use “Lapis Crystals” to “summon” a single, randomized character.
Dragon Ball Z: Dokkan Battle – Players can use “dragon stones” to purchase “summons” that offer random rewards and characters.
The lawsuits claim that while many of the games on the defendants’ platforms are advertised as “free,” players are enticed to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on loot boxes. The cases cite one example of a married, middle-aged man who reported on Reddit that he spent $1,500 in one day to obtain a Final Fantasy Brave Exvius character. According to another report, FIFA maker EA Sports had apparently generated over $1 billion by the end of 2018 from its free-to-play mobile games, with 36 percent of that amount from FIFA.
As for Apple and Google, the lawsuits claim the tech giants have made “huge profits” from gamers’ loot box purchases, with each company relying on such for a “substantial” portion of its revenue.
Loot Boxes Violate Gambling Laws, Lawsuits Claim
The cases argue that loot boxes are a form of gambling and therefore violate California anti-gambling laws. Just in the past two years, several countries—including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan—have banned the use of loot boxes over gambling concerns, while others have opened investigations into the practice, the suits add. Domestically, lawmakers in Hawaii, Minnesota, and Washington have reportedly introduced legislation aiming to ban loot boxes in video games.
The lawsuits stress that both Apple and Google’s ratings of games containing loot boxes make no mention of either loot boxes or gambling, instead only noting that the game “offers in-app purchases.”
“Thus,” the cases state, “there is no notice – and no requirement of any notice by [Apple and Google] – to the parent or the child that a game contains Loot Boxes or other gambling mechanisms.”
Who Do the Lawsuits Look to Cover?
The cases look to cover anyone who paid to receive randomized virtual items within an app downloaded from either the Apple App Store or the Google Play store.
How Do I Join the Lawsuits?
At this time, there’s nothing you need to do to join these lawsuits. If either of the suits moves forward and settles, anyone affected should be able to claim whatever compensation the court deems just.
In the meantime, you can keep up with class action news by signing up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.
The full complaints filed against Apple and Google can be read below.
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
A note on class action complaints:
Bear in mind that the information in this blog post summarizes the allegations put forth in the following legal complaint. At the time of this writing, nothing has been proven in court. Anyone can file a lawsuit, with or without the representation of an attorney, for any reason, and ClassAction.org takes no position on the merits of the suit. Class action complaints are a matter of public record, and our objective on this website is merely to share the information in these legal documents in an easily digestible way.