As a by the books ruling, this is expected. As they said, there is no monetary gain. Therefore, under a strict reading, they aren't gambling. No one who knew the law should be surprised about this.



What is more interesting is that they do acknowledge that the practices can be damaging. They said it themselves: "significant concerns". This means that we will either see new laws or a new regulatory body brought up in the wake of this decision. This is especially true when considering that the only thing that causes them to teeter the line is the fact that there is no monetary gain. In this statement, they have effectively stated: "This is everything leading up to and includes gambling, but can not be ruled as such due to a strict reading of the law."



Personally, the thing that I find most bullshit about this ruling is the fact that in order to qualify as gambling, you must have the ability to cash out. If lootboxes didn't exist as a faux virtual currency laundering scheme, you would be able to buy the cosmetics outright. That puts a monetary value on the cosmetics. Just because the object is in a virtual form does not mean it does not have value. By utilizing lootboxes, they are effectively hiding the cost of the object. This is the same shitty reason they use virtual currencies. These virtual currencies are one of the most damning evidences against lootboxes, because you pay into them to get currency, then pay with that fake currency to randomize a reward, and you also have a chance of getting some back with duplicates, or gathering rewards that would otherwise be bought or changed back into currency, offering a way to cash out.



It is, in entirety, virtual gambling. The only reason it isn't ruled as real gambling is because there is no cash out in real life.

Click to expand...