The legal battles over loot boxes continue, with gaming companies vigorously defending the use of randomized in-game rewards against allegations that they constitute unlawful gambling.
In a closely watched case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, lawyers for plaintiff-gamers have urged the court to reject Valve Corporation’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that the company’s loot box system violates Washington gambling laws.
The dispute highlights the continuing uncertainty surrounding one of the gaming industry’s most controversial monetization practices and comes amid increasing regulatory attention in the United States and abroad.
Valve Compares Loot Boxes to Trading Cards
With its motion to dismiss, Valve contends that its loot box system is not different from traditional products such as packs of baseball cards. According to the plaintiffs, however, Valve has created an integrated ecosystem in which players pay real money for a key to open a randomized loot box containing cosmetic “skins” for its popular games such as Counter-Strike, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2.
While players do receive an item every time they pay for a key and open the loot box, the overwhelming majority of skins are allegedly worth less than the purchase price, whereas particularly rare skins can command tens, or even hundreds, of dollars on Valve’s internal marketplace. Plaintiffs argue that Valve’s marketplace, transaction fees, and wallet credit system transform these virtual items into things of real economic value.
Valve, by contrast, argues that the case simply attempts to stretch gambling laws to cover products that have long existed legally, and without challenge, outside the gambling context. According to the company, loot boxes are not different from physical mystery products such as trading card packs or subscription boxes containing randomized contents. Consumers know the range of possible items they may receive, voluntarily purchase the product, and accept whatever item is inside.
Also, the virtual items do not meet the definition of “things of value” under Washington’s gambling statutes because they cannot be redeemed directly for cash; instead, the value remains confined to the Valve’s gaming ecosystem.
The plaintiffs respond that these distinctions ignore the commercial realities of Valve’s gaming platform. They point out that Valve itself operates the marketplace where items are bought and sold, displays prices in U.S. dollars, collects transaction fees on each resale, and allows users to spend their digital cash balances on games, hardware, and additional loot box keys. The complaint also highlights gaming mechanics that appear to mimic slot machine mechanics associated with gambling behavior.
FTC Targets Video Game Monetization
The Washington litigation does not arise in a vacuum. Regulatory scrutiny of loot boxes has been building for several years. In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hosted public workshops examining loot boxes and other in-game monetization practices, premised upon its Section 5 authority, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as well as upon COPPA, where children are involved.
They focused on such issues as consumer protection, transparency, children, and behavioral design, and the result was a 2020 FTC Staff Perspective paper, which did not establish or recommend regulations, but summarized concerns along the lines of inadequate disclosure of odds, confusing currency systems, risks to children, and use of so-called dark patterns to induce consumer spending.
Government enforcement has also accelerated in recent years, with federal and state regulators challenging various loot box systems under both consumer protection and gambling theories.
In February, the New York attorney general filed a separate lawsuit challenging Valve’s loot box system, alleging that it constitutes illegal gambling under New York law. That action seeks broad injunctive relief and reflects an increasingly aggressive enforcement posture by state regulators. International regulators have likewise remained active: Belgium and the Netherlands previously required Valve to disable certain loot box functionality, while China has imposed disclosure requirements regarding loot box odds.
Gaming Companies Face Evolving Legal Risks
For game publishers, developers, and platform operators, these cases underscore the evolving legal landscape surrounding randomized in-game purchases. Whether loot boxes constitute gambling often turns on highly state-specific statutory definitions of “prize,” “chance,” and “consideration,” as well as whether virtual items qualify as “things of value.”
Because gambling is traditionally regulated at the state level, different states have different language and different understandings of what constitutes a “thing of value,” which can make it difficult to conduct a legal game across the entire United States. And, even where gambling statutes do not apply, consumer protection laws, unfair trade practice statutes, and deceptive design theories may present parallel litigation risks.
While the Washington court has not yet ruled on Valve’s motion to dismiss, the outcome will likely be closely watched across the gaming industry. Together with the New York attorney general’s lawsuit and continued regulatory interest, the case illustrates that loot boxes remain one of the most legally significant and heavily scrutinized features of modern video games.
Companies utilizing randomized reward mechanics should continue monitoring developments carefully and evaluate whether their monetization systems adequately address the growing legal and regulatory concerns surrounding digital chance-based purchases.
For more insights into advertising law, bookmark the All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a podcast from Venable.
