Shopping Around for Loot Box Presence Warning Labels: Unsatisfactory Compliance on Epic, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft Platforms

Loot boxes are gambling-like products in video games that players can buy with real-world money to obtain random prizes. Many countries are concerned by their potential harms and are considering regulation. Industry self-regulation of companies’ own behavior is an alternative approach to direct government intervention through legislation. The self-regulatory age rating organizations in North America and Europe began assigning a loot box presence warning label (“In-game Purchases (Includes Random Items)”) since April 2020. This consumer protection measure has also been introduced to many digital storefronts. My recent study found that only 29% of popular games containing loot boxes were correctly labeled on the Google Play Store. The age rating organizations have seemingly suggested that other digital storefronts with significantly less content would, in contrast, perform significantly better. The present study found that the compliance rates were indeed higher on the Microsoft (89.1%), Sony (70.3%), and Nintendo (54.2%) stores. However, none met the target 95% compliance rate. Concerningly, the Epic Games Store's compliance rate was only 7.1%. Some remedial actions have been taken following the present study: while appreciated, they have failed to address all outstanding concerns. Companies and platform providers must better comply with and enforce the rules. Besides poor efficacy on mobile platforms, the industry self-regulatory loot box warning label is also not sufficiently reliable on PC and console platforms.


INTRODUCTION
Loot boxes are video game mechanics that players engage with to obtain random prizes.Loot boxes that require players to spend real-world money to purchase, or "paid loot boxes," are conceptually and psychologically similar to traditional gambling [ 1 ].References to "loot boxes" below refer exclusively to "paid loot boxes," unless otherwise specified.Loot boxes are presently widely implemented in at least 60% of high-grossing mobile games [ 2 -5 ] and about a third of popular PC games [ 5 ].Many games containing loot boxes are also deemed by companies, app stores, and age rating organizations as suitable for young people, including very young children aged 4 or above [ 2 -5 ].This is because loot box presence is not a consideration that increases a game's age rating in most countries [ 6 , 7 ], except under Germany's recently revised USK (Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle) system in certain limited circumstances [ 8 ].Indeed, the UK gambling regulator reported that 24% of 11-to 16-year-olds reported purchasing loot boxes with real-world money in 2022 [ 9 ].
Cross-sectional player research has repeatedly and consistently found that loot box spending is positively correlated with problem gambling severity [ 10 -12 ], as confirmed through meta-analyses [ 13 , 14 ].This relationship was also found amongst adolescent samples [ 15 , 16 ], which generally cannot legally access traditional gambling activities but can purchase loot boxes in video games.These results suggest that, through monetizing with loot boxes, video game companies may be disproportionately profiting from vulnerable consumers [ 17 ], such as those experiencing severe psychological distress (although contrary evidence has also been presented) [ 18 , cf. 19 , 20 ].Particular concerns have been raised about children and young people being vulnerable to potential harms as they may not be able to understand the risks involved and make informed purchasing decisions [ 16 , 21 -23 ].
Loot box spending has also been found to be positively correlated with problem video gaming in some studies [ 14 , 24 ], which suggests that highly engaged video game players may experience multiple types of harm: both financial [ 25 ] and gameplay time-related [ 26 ].(Players may also experience harm when trying to "earn" non-paid loot boxes that can be obtained through gameplay by overspending time [ 27 ].)In light of these potential harms and concerns, the industry has promised to implement harm-minimization measures by providing more transparency [ 28 -31 ].The present study empirically assessed whether companies are disclosing, as required, the presence of loot boxes in their games on leading video game storefronts operated by Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Epic to forewarn players and parents alike.The results were unsatisfactory.Many games were found to be non-compliant: they contained loot boxes but have not duly disclosed that fact as required, which also suggests that the platforms have not proactively enforced their own rules.Both individual companies and platform providers can and should do better.

Video Game Monetization: The Rise of Microtransactions
Video games used to be predominantly monetized using the "game-as-a-product" (GaaP) model whereby the player will purchase a license to use the video game software at a set price.Certain games, such as World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), adopted an alternative subscription-based monetization model whereby the player will pay a set price to temporarily gain access to gameplay for a certain period of time (e.g., 60 days) [ 32 , 33 ].However, over the last decade, games increasingly adopted the "games-as-a-service" (GaaS) model whereby revenue is generated through the player making various purchases (including loot boxes) within the game [ 34 ].These are often referred to as "micro transactions," although the value of some in-game purchases is not trivial or "micro" and could easily be upwards of, for example, U.S. $99 and be bought in multiples.Indeed, according to SuperData's estimation, in 2020, microtransactions represented 88% of all video game industry revenue globally or US$92.6 billion in value during a 10-month period [ 35 ].The GaaS model became more prevalent (and indeed dominant) in two ways: many new games released under the GaaS model, while several popular "premium" GaaP games that previously required players to purchase a copy of the software, such as Rocket League (Psyonix, 2016) [ 36 ], also transitioned into a "free-to-play" GaaS model.These various business models could also be used in conjunction: many games already being sold as a product also additionally offer microtransactions to generate even more revenue from its playerbase, thus further underlining the critical role microtransactions now play in the commercial video game context.

Aspects of Microtransactions as Dark Patterns
Aspects of video game design have been identified by Zagal et al. as constituting so-called "dark patterns" [ 37 ] that do not seek to improve the player experience in their best interest but are instead conceived to cause some negative experience onto the player to then cause them to do or not to do something (e.g., spend money), although see Deterding et al. for a recent critique [ 38 ].The design and implementation of microtransactions directly impacts on the player experience.The original conceptualization posited by Zagal et al. already identified one category of dark patterns as "monetary dark patterns" [ 37 (pp. 4-5)], for example, where some aspects of the game might be designed to be overly difficult or tedious to encourage players to spend real-world money to skip them.More recently, Petrovskaya and Zendle have identified many existing monetization techniques that have been implemented by designers that are viewed negatively by players as "unfair," "misleading," or "aggressive," for example, allowing players to spend real-world money to gain a competitive advantage over other players (so-called "pay-to-win") or forcing players to pay for basic "quality of life" features, such as limiting the player's in-game inventory space used to store items (which is crucial to an enjoyable gameplay experience in those games) unless realworld money is spent [ 39 ].These "problematic" or "predatory" microtransactions tend to appear more often in games on mobile phone devices where the game is almost always offered for free and monetized exclusively through in-game purchases, although the same also does occur more broadly on PC and console platforms [ 34 ].
The design and implementation of fair and transparent in-game purchases is important to ensuring the player's positive gameplay experience.When viewed through most ethical lenses, there is nothing inherently wrong with intending to monetarily profit from taking the risk to create and operate a video game and bringing that new product or experience to players [ 40 (p. 232)].However, a game that attempts to monetize too aggressively may be perceived as predatory and unethical by players [ 39 ], cause those players to not engage with the game and not spend money on it anymore, and thereby cause the game to be unprofitable.Game companies and their designers must balance revenue generation with providing an equitable player experience, and in any case must not engage in activities that infringe consumer protection, data protection, or contract law.One critical aspect of that is the appropriate disclosure of material information that consumers need to make an informed transactional decision [ 41 (p. 580)].

Potential Harms of Loot Boxes
"Loot boxes," in the context of the present study, is understood as any "in-game transactions with randomized elements" [ 30 ].This definition is used by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) , the industry self-regulator that moderates video game content and provides age ratings in North America, in lieu of "loot boxes" to be more inclusive of the wider phenomenon of gambling-like mechanisms (although the ESRB does not recognize the gambling link [ 42 ]) and the various types of in-game purchases involving randomization [ 30 ].This wide definition encompasses both traditional loot boxes represented as a virtual container that the player purchases to open and obtain random rewards and other types of in-game purchases that involve randomization, such as (i) virtual products providing random rewards not necessarily visually portrayed as a 25:4 L. Y. Xiao "box," such as character summoning or "gacha" systems [ 43 , 44 ]; (ii) the player spending real-world money for a chance to potentially obtain a random improvement to their existing in-game weapon [ 45 (p. 353)]; and (iii) simulated or social casino games [ 46 ]. (Note that there is debate within the academic literature as to whether it is appropriate to use "loot boxes" as a catch-all term like this, and in particular, whether simulated or social casino games, which may well be more harmful than "traditional" loot boxes should be seen as a type of "loot box" [ 47 , cf. 48 ].) Further, as to the diversity of loot box design features, Ballou et al. have identified many ways that these mechanics could be implemented differently: for example, what the player will receive in lieu (if anything at all) when they obtain a duplicate and redundant loot box reward that they already possess varies widely across games [ 49 ].Sato et al. similarly examined how loot box design varied across games using a cross-regional perspective [ 50 ].However, that variety is not relevant for present purposes: the requirement to disclose loot box presence applies uniformly, regardless of other features, so long as randomization is involved.
Loot boxes generally as a type of microtransaction have been singled out for both academic and regulatory scrutiny [ 34 , 38 ] likely due to the mechanic's unique involvement of randomization, which is not present in other in-game purchases (such as season or battle passes [ 51 , 52 ], which may, however, pose other risks and be criticized for not being transparent about what amount of time the player must spend playing the game before they can eventually obtain all rewards that they already seemingly bought).With loot boxes, the player does not know exactly what they are purchasing, which may impact on whether they have made an informed decision to spend money.Neely has argued that any form of in-game purchases with randomized rewards is ethically problematic, because their inclusion is not necessary: those same games could have been monetized without loot boxes (i.e ., the same in-game content could have been sold without randomization) [ 40 (pp. 233-234)].
Goodstein has suggested that implementing loot boxes generally constitute a dark pattern [ 53 (pp.300-302)], although that position is likely too extreme as it appears more reasonable to argue that certain aspects of loot box design constitute a dark pattern.Zagal et al.'s original work on video game dark patterns stated that: "We note that we do not consider gambling (or betting) as a dark pattern, because players are complicit in the interaction .Even in cases where the odds are distinctly against the player, the player has presumably made an informed decision to participate ."[ 37 (p. 4)] (emphasis added).If a game does not properly inform players that it involves gamblinglike elements at all or the relevant probabilities of winning involved with those elements, then the player cannot be said to have knowingly and willingly decided to engage with them (meaning that they would not have been "complicit in the interaction" nor have "made an informed decision to participate" in Zagal et al.'s words [ 37 (p.4)]).It is therefore more convincing to suggest that loot box implementations without proper disclosure of the relevant material information about the product (the fact that the game contains them and also the probabilities of winning rare rewards) would be a dark pattern.Similarly, such questionable aspects of loot box implementation (e.g., failures to disclose material information) are more likely to constitute illegal commercial practices that are contrary to consumer protection law, as compared to the loot box concept as a whole [cf 54 ].
Cross-sectional studies identifying the risk factors (e.g., experiencing problem gambling, problem videogaming, and psychological distress) for loot box-related financial harms have been summarized in the Introduction section [ 11 , 13 , 14 ].The demographics of players who engage more with loot boxes (e.g., younger age, male sex, non-university educational attainment, and unemployment) are similar to those who engage with and experience harms from other addictive behaviors [ 55 ].The major criticism against previous loot box research, that the studies were all crosssectional and therefore could not demonstrate causality, has recently started being addressed in longitudinal studies that have established that young people who purchase loot boxes are more likely to participate in, and spend more money on, traditional gambling six months later [ 56 , 57 ], thus strengthening the case for loot boxes to be subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Given the potential harms, besides academic and policy interests, the loot box issue is also considered highly relevant by players themselves.This is illustrated by how, in the study by Petrovskaya and Zendle seeking to assess how players felt about other types of in-game monetization besides loot boxes, many players still decided to discuss loot boxes despite being instructed otherwise [ 39 (p. 1074)].Qualitative studies on loot box-purchasing players have found that many hold negative opinions against loot boxes and companies that implement them [ 58 ].Vulnerable players said they were motivated by compulsion and the fear of missing out (FOMO) to buy loot boxes [ 59 ].Some players have self-reported experiencing harm due to loot box engagement [ 60 ].Parents of underage players are naturally also concerned about the content that they decide to allow their children access to [ 61 ] and the emotional and financial harms that they may cause [ 21 ].Developers and publishers are also interested in developments in this realm as they may need to take specific actions (e.g., change their loot box design [ 2 , 62 ] or display mandated information about the product [ 3 , 4 , 41 (p. 580)]) to comply with regulatory requirements.

Loot Box Regulation
A few countries have already acted to legally regulate loot boxes [ 41 , 62 -65 ].Belgium has attempted to "ban" loot boxes by enforcing preexisting gambling law (which is drafted more widely than other countries') [ 66 ].However, empirical research has found that loot boxes continue to be widely implemented in high-grossing mobile games, because the gambling regulator does not have sufficient resources to enforce the law by criminally prosecuting companies in practice [ 2 ].The gambling regulator in the Netherlands attempted to enforce their gambling law against Electronic Arts' loot boxes in the FIFA series [ 67 ], but the Dutch court has since decided that loot boxes are generally not regulable under national gambling law [ 68 ].China has taken a less restrictive approach and did not prohibit loot box sales; instead, video game companies are required to make probability disclosures to better inform consumers about the likelihood of receiving specific rewards [ 69 ].This provides transparency and would help consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.However, empirical research has found that, although the vast majority of companies complied by disclosing probabilities, most disclosures were not visually prominent and were difficult for players to access: for example, with the loot box purchase screen as the starting point, one game required the player to tap multiple buttons and follow multiple hyperlinks before displaying the probabilities [ 4 ].These examples demonstrate that regulating loot boxes with law is practically difficult and that companies often either did not comply or complied sub-optimally.
One alternative to legal regulation is industry self-regulation [ 65 ].This is when hardware providers (such as Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo), digital storefronts (such as the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store [ 3 , 61 ]), trade bodies (such as the U.S. Entertainment Software Association (ESA) [ 28 ] and UK Interactive Entertainment (Ukie) [ 70 ]), or individual companies (both developers and publishers) decide to adopt certain measures to enhance consumer protection by going above and beyond existing legal requirements [ 71 , 72 ].This approach has certain benefits, such as being quicker than legal regulation at responding to novel developments in the industry and possessing specialist video game knowledge that more general governmental regulators might lack [ 3 ].However, when self-regulating, the industry is always conflicted, as any effective regulation (e.g., that demonstrably reduces spending) acts against its own commercial self-interest of revenue generation.The adoption of industry self-regulation has also been relied upon by the industry to argue against the imposition of more stringent legal regulation [ 73 , 74 ].Research on other industries offering (potentially) harmful products, such as alcohol, has found that companies might promote their industry self-regulation of untested efficacy to placate consumer concerns, reduce public scrutiny, and dissuade more effective and restrictive legal regulation, rather than to genuinely enhance consumer protection [ 75 ].Recognizing those pros and cons, the UK Government recently decided to rely on industry self-regulation to address loot box harms, rather than to impose legal regulation [ 76 ].The Ukie self-regulatory principles and guidance have since been published [ 77 ].(In contrast, other countries, such as Brazil and Australia [ 78 ], are presently considering direct legislative intervention to reduce loot box-related harms [ 79 ].)

Industry Self-regulation: Loot Box Presence Warning Labels
In the loot box context, two types of industry self-regulation have been adopted.First, many hardware and software platforms now require loot box probability disclosures.This means that consumers living outside of territories that require probability disclosures by law (e.g., China) would also benefit from this information.However, it appears that only two-thirds of games containing loot boxes were complying with industry self-regulation in the UK [ 3 ], as compared to nearly all games with loot boxes complying in China [ 4 ].Second, age rating organizations that moderate video game content (e.g., the ESRB in North America and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) in Europe) introduced a loot box presence warning label.Specifically, since April 2020, games containing loot boxes or indeed any "in-game transactions with randomized elements" [ 30 ] were labeled with the following phrase: "In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)" (see Figures 1  and 2 ).The Ukie self-regulatory principles and guidance of mid-2023 have reiterated that these are required to provide enhanced consumer protection [ 77 ].
This label was introduced to inform consumers about whether a game contains loot boxes so that they are not surprised by their presence after purchasing or downloading a game [ 30 , 31 ].This measure can help consumers and parents to not purchase or download games containing loot boxes, if they do not want (their child) to engage with these mechanics.This loot box presence warning label has previously been criticized for not providing sufficient information and for inventing unfamiliar language that players and consumers do not already know, rather than simply referencing "loot boxes" or "gacha" [ 61 , 80 ].Under experimental conditions, these labels were not understandable to most consumers and therefore, in practice, likely "fail to adequately inform consumer spending decisions" [ 81 ].The label is applied to physically released and digitally released games differently.With physical games, my recent study identified that both the ESRB and PEGI have made at least one rating error by failing to attach the label to a game containing loot boxes [ 61 ].Further, because the ESRB decided that games originally rated prior to the label being introduced (i.e ., before 13 April 2020) need not be retroactively labeled, many games containing loot boxes were not, and will not be, correctly labeled in North America, such that consumers cannot rely on the label to provide accurate information [ 61 ].In contrast, PEGI decided to apply the measure retroactively, meaning that nearly all games rated before 13 April 2020 containing loot boxes are now labeled in Europe [ 61 ].
In relation to digital games, age ratings and content information are provided through the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) , which generates age ratings and attaches the loot box label to games globally based on companies' self-disclosure in a questionnaire [ 82 ].The Google Play Store uses the IARC system and so games containing loot boxes could be labeled on that platform.However, only 29% of 100 popular games containing loot boxes were correctly labeled when independently checked in January 2023 [ 61 ].The majority was not labeled.The IARC has attempted to justify this widespread non-compliance by stating that the measure was only adopted on the Google Play Store in February 2022 and arguing that only games rated after that time needed to comply with the measure and be labeled [ 61 ].This means that most games containing loot boxes are not liable for labeling, and so this measure cannot be relied upon by consumers and parents to provide accurate information on loot box presence.Considering that most presently high-grossing and popular games were released prior to February 2022 and the fact that this is unlikely to change for the next few years, this measure was poorly implemented on the Google Play Store.PEGI, which endorses the IARC, and the IARC, in response to my recent study [ 61 ], have argued that the Google Play Store poses a unique regulatory challenge because of the sheer volume of content available ("hundreds of thousands of games" according to the IARC [ 83 ] and estimated to be 500,000 individual games by another source [ 84 ]) and the practical difficulties of accurately revisiting the rating decisions for all those games.PEGI, specifically, stated that: "we [meaning PEGI] don't have these issues with other storefronts" [ 85 ].

Those "Other Storefronts": Better Compliance with Smaller Volume?
The IARC is also implemented on, inter alia , the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, the Nintendo eShop, and the Sony PlayStation Store, as shown in the promotional material published on the IARC's official website displayed as Figure 3 .(The other storefronts shown in Figure 3 , such as the Meta Quest Store, are significantly smaller and have more niche focuses, and therefore are not discussed further.)PEGI, and by extension the IARC, has suggested that compliance with loot box presence labeling would be significantly better on those other stores.(However, in response to the results of the present study, PEGI has stated in a remote meeting with me on 17 March 2023 that it did not intend to make that claim [ 85 ] and has since clarified that it did not intend to suggest that the other storefronts will necessarily perform better and was merely pointing out that the vast volume of content was a unique difficulty that is faced on the Google Play Store.Regardless, the present study was originally motivated by and conducted based on my interpretation that PEGI did seemingly make that claim and is narrated below as such.)On the face of it, this assertion seems believable, because: (i) much fewer games are available on these other stores (such that enforcement is a lot more practicable); (ii) the platform providers are major video game companies that scrutinize submissions more than Google does on its platform (such that unlabeled games are less likely to be accepted for publication); and (iii) a far smaller percentage of games contain loot boxes on console and PC hardware platforms than on mobile platforms (thus further reducing the number of games that need to be labeled and whose labeling needs to be monitored).The present study was conducted to independently and empirically verify that claim seemingly made by PEGI and, by extension, the IARC.

METHOD
My recent study [ 61 ] identified 186 games (which included two duplicates, as they both appeared in two of the lists below) that were confirmed to contain loot boxes: (i) 38 games were self-labeled by the company as containing loot boxes on the Google Play Store; (ii) 79 games were independently verified to contain loot boxes by the IARC, after being reported for potential labeling by said study, and have since been labeled; and (iii) 69 games were labeled as containing loot boxes by either the ESRB or PEGI and that labeling status was not successfully disputed by the other (the four physical games that were false positives that were incorrectly identified as containing loot boxes by one age rating organization when they did not and the one physical game whose loot boxes were not purchasable from PEGI territories were excluded).
After removing the two duplicates, these 184 games were entered into the search tools for the Epic Games Store ( https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/ ), the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox ( https://w w w.xbox.com/en-gb/), the Nintendo eShop ( https://w w w.nintendo.co.uk/ ), and the Sony PlayStation Store ( https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/) to attempt to identify a version of the same game on those platforms.This replicates how my recent study [ 61 ] used the Google Play Store search tool to identify a game's labeling status.The region and language settings for the storefronts were put to the UK (except for the Epic Games Store, where this could not be done) to receive PEGI-based information.In relation to the Epic Games Store, PEGI-based information was still captured (even though the web address contained "US [United States]").This was due to my being located in a PEGI territory during data collection and thus showing an IP address that the Epic Games Store would have recognized as being from within the PEGI region.To confirm that the Epic Games Store changed the age ratings it displayed depending on the user's IP address, rather than based on region and language settings, a VPN (Virtual Private Network) was used to spoof my IP address to instead appear as coming from the U.S. instead; doing so caused ESRBbased information to be shown in lieu when visiting the same link.The present study focused on compliance in PEGI territories, because the aforementioned claim that is being tested was made by PEGI.A total of 60 games were found in at least one of those four digital storefronts: this formed the sample.
A further 12 games known to contain loot boxes based on my prior knowledge and through a review of the list of only 102 "free games and apps" then available on the Nintendo eShop (as discussed below) were added into the sample to bolster the number of games available for scrutiny on the Epic Games Store and the Nintendo eShop, as much fewer games were available on those two storefronts when compared to the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox and the Sony PlayStation Store.
The following two variables were measured on 14 February 2023 in relation to those 72 games.Availability : Whether said game was available on the four storefronts, respectively, by having a dedicated product page.Games that were still displayed but were no longer available for purchase were duly noted as bearing that status but included in the sample (as the game may have been available for purchase until very recently, e.g., August 2022 [ 86 ], i.e ., well after the label was introduced in April 2020).Games that were once available but are no longer displayed were counted as "not available" as their Labeling status could not be verified.
Labeling status : Whether said game was attached with and displaying the "In-game Purchases (Includes Random Items)" label on the four storefronts, respectively.
A labeling "compliance rate" for each of the four storefronts was, respectively, calculated as follows: Total number of games labeled Total number of games available on that storefront .
Screenshots showing the labeling status and Safari .webarchivefiles preserving the webpages visited were recorded.These are made publicly available at the data deposit link in the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MS2C .
The results of the present study were then sent to PEGI and the USK (the self-regulatory German age rating organization [ 87 ] who also participates in the IARC [ 88 ]) and, by extension, the IARC.I also understand that the results have been forwarded by PEGI to the relevant storefronts with a request for a response (although, after more than seven months, none were personally received as of October 2023).I discussed the present findings with PEGI in a remote meeting on 17 March 2023, which clarified a number of points that have been incorporated into the Discussion section.Official written responses were subsequently received from PEGI (which may indirectly include   perspectives from the storefronts) and the USK: these are published for transparency and wider scrutiny at the data deposit link.

Labeling Compliance Rates
The labeling compliance rates of the four storefronts are shown in Table 1 .

PEGI and USK Responses: Post-study Labeling Status
The detailed response received from PEGI stating the post-study status of each game that was found to be unlabeled, including the remedial actions that have since been taken to fix some of the issues, are presented in Table 2 .
A number of games were no longer available for purchase or download; these are not scrutinized further.As factual background, PEGI decided to invite publishers to voluntarily retroactively label their games as containing loot boxes if that game was rated prior to the label being introduced in April 2020 (in contrast to the ESRB, which has decided not to retroactively label any games); laudably, most publishers did do so [ 61 ].This meant that the labeling status and rating information of a number of games have retroactively changed in the PEGI system.However, this "update" to now additionally include the label had to be manually actioned and was not implemented effectively.The games affected by this issue have now been accurately labeled.However, notably, two highly popular games containing loot boxes, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege (Ubisoft, 2015) and P UBG Battlegrounds (P UBG Studios & Krafton, 2016), remain unlabeled and continue to provide inaccurate information (i.e ., fail to disclose loot box presence), because the publishers have not voluntarily retroactively updated their rating information.No other issues are outstanding in relation to the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox and the Sony PlayStation Store.
The situation on the Nintendo eShop is more complicated.The games that were missing the label were rated using the expediated IARC procedure for digital releases, rather than the more complex PEGI procedure for games intended for physical release [ 61 ].Most of these unlabeled games were, according to PEGI, rated prior to the label's introduction.As factual background, it is IARC policy that games rated prior to the label being introduced to a storefront (the dates of which are not publicly known) are not obliged to attach the label [ 61 ].Nonetheless, all but one game identified to contain loot boxes by the present study and subsequently verified to do so by PEGI have now been labeled.That one remaining game continues to be unlabeled, because its license has not been updated by the publisher: it is not understood why this has not been done compulsorily as the IARC system has been retroactively applied against other identified games (and it is not known whether the consent of the publisher to attach the label was obtained in all such previous cases, which appears unlikely).Two other games remained unlabeled at the time the PEGI response was sent.One game, Pokémon UNITE (TiMi & The Pokémon Company, 2021), continued to be under investigation at that time as to whether it met the criteria for the label (i.e ., whether it contained in-game purchases with randomized elements) but, as of 16 May 2023, the game has since been duly labeled as verified by me.The other game, Pokémon Quest (Game Freak & Nintendo, 2018), was determined by PEGI as to have not met the criteria for the label (i.e ., it did not contain in-game purchases with randomized elements according to PEGI).
The state of affairs on the Epic Games Store was due to the storefront undergoing "full development" and so has not properly implemented the age rating system, despite the official claim that it is allegedly a "participating storefront" of the IARC system [ 88 ].
PEGI also argued that games that were "viewable but no longer purchasable" should have been excluded from the sample when calculating compliance rates on the bases that "consumers cannot buy or access these games" and "if a publisher or a game is no longer active, a lingering storefront listing will obviously not be updated."This critique is addressed in the Discussion section.
In response to the results, the USK only confirmed that the Epic Games is in the process of implementing the IARC system and suggested that "lengthy implementation processes" are to be expected and acceptable.The USK did not express a view when asked to comment on the current unsatisfactory compliance situation on various stores and did not state how it intends to improve the situation.

DISCUSSION
The present study assessed whether games containing loot boxes were duly labeled as required by industry self-regulation on four storefronts governed by the IARC.My recent study [ 61 ] proposed that: a compliance rate of at least 95% should be deemed as the self-regulation having been nearly perfectly complied with and worthy of commendation; a compliance rate between 80%-95% would be deemed as the measure having been mostly complied with, although requiring improvements; and a compliance rate below 80% means that the measure was not adequately complied with and must be significantly improved to achieve its regulatory aims.These cut-off values and corresponding interpretations were based on what I personally thought "would be a 'satisfactory' self-regulatory measure and what [I] deemed most policymakers would agree with" [ 61 (p.7)].The Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox had a compliance rate of 89.1% and therefore came close to achieving, but did not achieve, the highest tier of compliance.This demonstrates that the measure could be enforced well (at least on a platform with fewer games) and that a 95% compliance rate is potentially achievable.The Sony PlayStation Store (70.3% compliance rate) and the Nintendo eShop (54.2% compliance rate) performed worse.These results show that, even on platforms that are more manageable than the Google Play Store, the platform providers did not perform their monitoring and enforcement duties in a satisfactory manner.Both Sony and Nintendo should follow Microsoft's example and do more to ensure that the labeling is accurate, for example, by more regularly reviewing games as to whether they are labeled and compliant.
The Nintendo results were poorer than those of Microsoft and Sony likely due to the inclusion of a greater number of free-to-play titles that were rated through the IARC system, which is heavily (and potentially solely) reliant on self-disclosures by companies with conflicting self-interests and which did not invite companies to retroactively attach loot box labels, rather than through the PEGI system, which involves additional manual examination by independent assessors [ 89 ] and which did invite companies to retroactively label their games.The latter obviously has a more accountable procedure but is not used in relation to exclusively digitally released games [ 61 ].Note that, as of 20 March 2023, there were only 102 "free games and apps" for the Nintendo Switch on the Nintendo eShop (as evinced by webpage printouts available at the data deposit link).This partially demonstrates the significantly lower volume of content that must be regulated through the IARC system on these other stores, as compared to the vast volume of IARC-regulated content that is available on the Google Play Store.This means that enforcing compliance on these other stores should have been significantly easier.Indeed, given the limited amount of available content, these stores could even consider adopting a two-step rating process that involves both (i) the game company completing a self-disclosure questionnaire (which the present IARC system already requires) and (ii) independent reviewers assessing content pre-release to verify the self-disclosures, similarly to what is currently done by the ESRB and PEGI with physically released games [ 61 ].
All three aforementioned storefronts (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) performed better (some significantly so) than the Google Play Store, which achieved a compliance rate of only 29% in my recent study [ 61 ].In contrast, the Epic Games Store performed even worse than the Google Play Store and only labeled one out of 14 games containing loot boxes (7.1%).For example, FIFA 23 (Electronic Arts, 2022), which is part of arguably the most infamous series of video games containing loot boxes, was not labeled on the Epic Games Store; instead, a generic "In-game Purchases" label was displayed.FIFA 23 shows a release date of 30 September 2022 on the Epic Games Store.The only game that was labeled on the Epic Games Store, Roller Champions (Ubisoft, 2022), shows a release date of 23 June 2022, and an earlier "initial release" date of 25 May 2022.FIFA 23 was released after Roller Champions .Therefore, even a potential argument based on how the label was only adopted on the Epic Games Store very recently and was not retroactively applied cannot be used to exonerate FIFA 23 for missing its label.The Epic Games Store is operated by Epic Games.This company has taken a very anti-loot box stance in recent years, in contrast to other members of the industry that have adopted pro-loot box or neutral stances.For example, Epic Games' CEO has publicly criticized loot boxes and encouraged companies to stop selling them to treat consumers more fairly [ 90 ].Indeed, Epic Games has "put its money where its mouth is" by taking a lead in removing loot boxes from games in its portfolio [ 72 ]: loot boxes were removed from Fortnite (Epic Games, 2017) [ 91 , 92 ] and from Rocket League [ 93 , 94 ].Epic Games even settled class-action complaints in the US and Canada and agreed to compensate players who bought loot boxes (without admitting any liability or wrongdoing) [ 79 ].It is contradictory, therefore, that the Epic Games Store has not been enforcing the loot box label.
Besides the platform providers needing to better enforce the rules, individual companies that failed to label their games and broke the rules in the first place must also improve by better understanding their compliance obligations and strengthening their internal legal and compliance procedures.For example, PUBG Battlegrounds failed to attach the label on all three platforms where it is available.Interestingly, the company publishes information about loot boxes and probability disclosures on its website [ 95 ].The most recent post contained the following sentence four times: "Due to legal regulations, the [loot boxes] are not available for purchase in Belgium and the Netherlands."Given the two specific countries cited (whose loot box regulations have been highly publicized, although see Section 1.1 above for the accurate, current legal positions), these "legal regulations" must be referring to gambling laws.Therefore, the companies behind PUBG Battlegrounds appear to understand and respect their legal obligations; however, it has not fulfilled its industry self-regulatory obligations.These companies were either unaware of the relevant industry self-regulation (which is hard to believe, because this is one of the most popular games operated by well-established companies and so should have a knowledgeable legal and compliance team) or have actively chosen to not comply with industry self-regulation (but did choose to comply with Belgian and Dutch law).If the latter is true, then the reliability and efficacy of industry self-regulation is greatly challenged, and legal regulation with more effective deterrence should be preferred.

Accessibility and Visual Prominence
On the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox, and the Sony PlayStation Store, the label, when it is shown, is displayed quite prominently.The consumer would be able to see it when visiting the relevant product page without needing to perform any additional action.Using "Ctrl +F" or another function to search for the text of the label would also allow the consumer to easily find the label on the webpage.This is in contrast to how the label was difficult to access on the Google Play Store, which required the consumer to perform additional actions (e.g., tapping or clicking on a small (i) button next to the age rating) before showing the label.The label was similarly more difficult to access on the Nintendo eShop: it is not automatically shown on the first webpage for the product (and so was also not text searchable at that point), and the consumer must click on a "Details" hyperlink to be taken to a different webpage where the label is shown.On the Nintendo Switch version of the Nintendo eShop, the label is similarly not prominently displayed.The consumer must enter the product page and scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to see the label.The PEGI age rating is actually shown immediately on the product page on the right-hand side and is "pinned" there as the consumer scrolls further down the product page.There is sufficient space to display the loot box label (and other rating information) just under the age rating.Nintendo should improve the visual prominence of the label.Indeed, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato; AGCM) has successfully enforced consumer protection regulation to force Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts to commit to always displaying the label prominently (e.g., on the first product page shown without requiring the player to perform any action) by arguing that not doing so potentially infringes the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive [2005] OJ L149/22 (or rather national implementations thereof) [ 41 , 61 , 79 ].
Notably, one internal inconsistency was found on the Nintendo eShop.PUZZLE & DRAGONS Nintendo Switch Edition (Gungho Online Entertainment, 2022) was not labeled on the web version of the Nintendo eShop, but was labeled on the Switch version, as shown in Figure 4 .Other interesting cases where a game disclosed loot box presence through other means were also discovered: a few companies put a disclaimer about loot box presence into the game's description on the product page, and one company put a similar disclaimer into the space usually reserved for copyright and privacy notices.Curiously, some of these companies did not attach the loot box label to their game (and were therefore non-compliant), but chose to otherwise highlight loot box presence.These additional sources of information would not hinder the consumer experience and could only increase the opportunities for the consumer to see information about loot box presence.Therefore, other companies are encouraged to also make similar additional disclosures.Companies can also choose to do this on storefronts that have not implemented the label or a similar feature, e.g., the Apple App Store, to proactively inform their consumers about loot box presence.

Responding to PEGI and the USK Responses
As detailed in the Results section, despite PEGI having led the storefronts and the companies in taking remedial action to address the concerns raised by the present study (e.g., re-labeling games), a few, but highly popular, games containing loot boxes remain unlabeled on the major storefronts presently.This means that consumers are still not being provided with accurate information.According to PEGI/IARC policy, it is within the publishers' discretion whether to voluntarily attach the label for games rated prior to the label's introduction.The disadvantages of failing to label "older" games and giving them more unfair privileges, such as misleading consumers into trusting the labeling status in all cases and anti-competition concerns, have been argued elsewhere previously [ 61 (pp. 20-22)].These companies should attach the label at the earliest instance.Indeed, not displaying the label (or an equivalent message highlighting loot box presence) infringes UK advertising regulation [ 96 , 97 ], specifically the Guidance on advertising in-game purchases [ 98 (p. 10)]; Ukie's self-regulatory principles and guidance [ 77 ]; and potentially infringes consumer protection law in other regions, e.g., the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (or rather national implementations thereof) [ 41 , 61 ].
The PEGI response concerning the Nintendo eShop has again spotlighted the difficulties surrounding finding an appropriate definition for a "loot box" or for "an in-game transaction with randomized elements" that would warrant the warning label [ 47 , cf. 48 ].The implementation of the relevant monetization mechanic involving randomization in certain games is more insidious than just a virtual container with random rewards that can be directly purchased and opened.PEGI has determined that one game, Pokémon Quest , does not contain monetization mechanics that would need to be labeled.However, in this game, the player is able to spend real-world money to purchase a "premium currency" (i.e ., virtual currency that can be purchased using real-world money) that can then be used to purchase "energy" that can subsequently be used to complete in-game quests, which reward random content.The energy may be viewed as a second type of "premium currency" that can be bought with real-world money through an additional layer of exchange and is used to complete the quest, which represents the "loot box," as the process eventually provides random rewards [ 99 ].The distinction that PEGI is attempting to draw is difficult to justify, even though there might have been one more level of transfer between real-world money to the second type of premium currency.Indeed, on previous occasions, PEGI has seemingly agreed that such energy mechanics that can ultimately be recharged using real-world money and then used to obtain random rewards do warrant the label, as it has re-labeled a number of games containing such a mechanic on the Google Play Store upon request and following independent verification [ 61 (p. 22)].PEGI appears to be inconsistently enforcing its rules.If more hidden implementations of loot boxes that require multiple currency exchanges or other additional steps are not similarly regulated as regular, simple loot boxes, then companies are being incentivized to implement more concealed variations, which would pose higher risks for consumers than obvious loot box implementations that are more honest about their properties.These more disguised loot box variations would also be more difficult for regulators to identify: It is interesting to note that PEGI stated that one game, Pokémon UNITE , remained "under investigation" one month after it was put on notice to examine the game.As of 16 May 2023, the game has since been duly labeled.Companies should never be encouraged to implement more elaborate monetization schemes that are eventually revealed to nevertheless involve randomization.
The excuse that has been provided on behalf of the Epic Games Store is unsatisfactory: the situation might be characterized as an epic failure.If a storefront is not actually ready to display accurate age rating information to consumers, then that storefront should not be listed as a platform that has implemented the IARC system so as not to give consumers the incorrect impression that the system has been duly implemented and can now be relied upon.The one sole instance where the game was duly labeled on the Epic Games Store may cause further confusion as it appears to suggest that the system has already been put in place.The USK has refused to reveal the expected timeline for the Epic Games Store to implement the IARC system.As of 15 October 2023, FIFA 23 remained unlabeled eight months after the study was conducted.A popular game containing loot boxes that was released in April 2023 after the present study was conducted, Honkai: Star Rail (miHoYo, 2023), also remained misleadingly unlabeled on the Epic Games Store as of 14 October 2023 (despite being duly labeled on the Google Play Store).These omissions suggest that properly implementing the IARC age rating system is not a priority for the Epic Games Store even though it should be, especially considering that the task is not onerous and indeed appears quite simple.Until the IARC system is duly implemented, the IARC website should be amended by removing the Epic Games Store as 25:16 L. Y. Xiao a participating storefront (as it is not in fact participating).The agreement by a storefront to aspirationally participate in the future should not be advertised as actual participation.A disclaimer should be provided stating that Epic Games Store has not properly implemented the system, and an expected timeline should be provided to better inform consumers and align expectations.
Regarding the methodological decision to include "viewable but no longer purchasable" games in the sample, this was done because these product pages continued to provide information.Although these games were no longer purchasable, at least some of them remained available for download by consumers who have already purchased them in the past.The decision of whether to re-download the game may also be impacted by the label, just like the original purchasing decision could have been so influenced (which was the "legislative intent" behind introducing the label in the first place [ 30 , 31 ]), for example, if an "older" game is being downloaded for another member of the family to try.Indeed, some of those "viewable but no longer purchasable" games were correctly labeled and were counted as compliant.The compliance rates may therefore either increase or decrease , if such games are removed from the calculations.In any case, updating the label would incur only minimum costs given how few games on these platforms actually contain loot boxes, so it should be done.If a game or company is truly no longer active, such that the product page can no longer be maintained as PEGI suggests, then it should be removed entirely from the storefront so as not to leave open any possibility of misleading consumers.
Finally, the USK refused to answer my question as to what it intends to do to improve compliance and provide better consumer protection when the situations on the Google Play Store and the Epic Games Store are objectively unsatisfactory as many games containing loot boxes still remain unlabeled and are failing to warn consumers and parents [ 61 ].This suggests that the USK may not be viewing the loot box issue as a priority.Unique features about the German self-regulatory regime for video game age ratings mean that it is technically a form of "co-regulation" (whereby broader regulatory aims are set out by legislation but are carried through in practice by partially discretionar y industr y self-regulation) and not pure industry self-regulation (whereby all relevant matters are at the sole discretion of the industry self-regulator or the industry at large).Under the USK system, boarder legislative interventions can force the USK to take certain actions and address specific issues: for example, a recent change in the law that listed "in-game purchases" and "gambling-like mechanisms" as risks for young people that must be addressed caused the USK to then introduce its own loot box presence warning label for physically released games effective 1 January 2023 [ 8 , 100 ].Therefore, if deemed appropriate, German legislators should consider requiring the USK to do more in relation to digitally released games: perhaps setting out how the USK should actively participate in, and attempt to improve, the IARC system.This also shows how different "participating rating authorities" of the IARC are not identical and may have different legal statuses and interests: indeed, the Australian Classification Board is a government body and not an industry self-regulator [ 101 ] and therefore should not be as conflicted from acting against industry interests (e.g., be less pressured to not more strictly demand better compliance).

Limitations
The sample was biased toward games that were previously confirmed or known to contain loot boxes.Most of these games were, and presently remain, highly popular and receive heavy scrutiny from age rating self-regulators and other stakeholders.Indeed, the vast majority of the sample had its loot box presence labeled elsewhere, thus putting the relevant company on notice about needing to similarly attach labels on other storefronts.Therefore, the compliance rate amongst this sample is likely higher than the overall true value, similarly to other previous studies examining loot boxrelated compliance issues amongst high-grossing and popular games [ 2 -4 , 61 ].
The region settings were set to the UK, which is a PEGI region, where possible to produce PEGI-based information.This meant that only compliance with the label in PEGI territories was assessed.The compliance and enforcement situations in North America (i.e ., ESRB territories) and in other parts of the world may differ (although perhaps not greatly given the IARC's supposed global application).For example, one game, Mobile Suit Gundam Battle Operation 2 (Bandai Namco Entertainment, 2018), was not labeled by PEGI on the UK Sony PlayStation Store, but was labeled by the ESRB on the US Sony PlayStation Store.My recent study [ 61 ] found that the physical version of Mobile Suit Gundam Battle Operation 2 was labeled incongruently in a similar manner (i.e ., labeled by the ESRB but not PEGI).This suggests that the Sony PlayStation Store was actually displaying the age ratings for the game's physical release, rather than that of its digital release as generated through the IARC, even though the storefront is technically selling the digital version.It appears that these digital storefronts may actually be implementing a combination of the PEGI/ESRB system for physically released games and the IARC for digitally released games to provide age ratings for digital purchases.It is likely that had a PEGI/ESRB rating been available for the physical version, then that rating would have been displayed in lieu of a newly generated IARC rating.Therefore, the results of the present study may be more reflective of how the storefronts did not accurately attach the label to games even after PEGI and the ESRB have duly labeled them, rather than how the IARC system (which, according to PEGI, only the additional Nintendo Switch games in the present sample actually used) was not well-implemented, complied with, and enforced.I could not independently verify whether each game on each storefront displayed its traditional PEGI/ESRB rating or a newly generated IARC rating.
Although the present study was undertaken to broaden the literature by examining storefronts that previous research did not have an opportunity to assess, this was not a comprehensive exercise.The labeling situation on other digital storefronts that are not part of the IARC remains unknown.Other prominent candidates for future research are the Steam platform by Valve, GOG.com owned by CD Projekt, and Humble Bundle for PC games.
My recent study [ 61 ] and the present study have exposed flaws with the implementation and enforcement of (self-)regulation in video game content moderation contexts.Whether or not other aspects of video game software (e.g., whether the player can share their real-life location with other users or whether the game gives the player unrestricted access to any internet content through a browser [ 6 ]) have been duly highlighted as promised by age rating organizations should be further studied as failure to disclose those could lead to even more direct harm to players, particularly children, than loot boxes.
Loot boxes have been the most heavily scrutinized video game mechanic.Other potentially predatory forms of in-game monetization have been identified [ 34 , 51 ].Future research should consider how those elements (which are arguably more subjective than the presence of loot boxes) could be regulated either by law or industry self-regulation.

Toward Better Industry Self-regulation
As mentioned, the UK Government recently decided to rely on industry self-regulation to address loot box harms, rather than to legislate: citing a desire to avoid incurring public costs if possible [ 76 ].The detailed self-regulatory principles and guidance have since been published by Ukie and explicitly include the requirement of making loot box presence warning disclosures [ 77 ].Relevantly, previous experience with loot box presence warning labels has identified two points that any future regulation must address.
First, industry self-regulation should be actively scrutinized externally to ensure compliance.The industry merely promising that a measure is to be adopted does not necessarily mean that said measure will in fact be adopted widely by industry members in practice: as demonstrated in the present case.Rather than choosing between pure industry self-regulation or direct state legal regulation, both of which sit at their respective extreme ends of the regulatory spectrum, it may be wise to go between those two options and instead adopt middle-ground "co-regulation" [ 102 (p. 26)].This approach means that, although the rules are still generally managed by the industry, there is some legal footing or back-stop that guides the regulatory efforts and can be relied on to ensure that the regulatory aims will be met, for example, by setting out what issues must be addressed and legal requirements as to how compliance must be monitored and enforced.The German USK system may be characterized as such.Other countries may benefit from moving beyond a purely industry self-regulated system with no official guidance for video games and toward a co-regulated environment where the general policy agenda is set out through legislation but then the exact practical requirements are (within reason) left to the industry's discretion to take advantage of the industry's subject matter expertise and ability to respond more quickly to novel issues.This can be achieved in the UK, for example, by requiring that the loot box industry self-regulation (whose content the industry is allowed, again within reason, to decide) to contain an internal enforcement mechanism and explicitly state that it is a "code of conduct" within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, such that any failure to comply with verifiable self-regulatory commitments by a signatory company can ultimately be subject to external enforcement, i.e ., criminal prosecution [ 103 ].
Second, industry self-regulation should be founded on the same principles as legal regulation.Just like policymaking, the design and imposition of industry self-regulation must be evidencebased.No research was conducted on the potential effectiveness of either probability disclosures or presence warning labels at reducing loot box harm before they were imposed (and repeated in the Ukie self-regulatory principles and guidance [ 77 ]).Subsequent research following implementation has found that probability disclosures likely do not influence the majority of players (and may even cause some players to spend more money) [ 104 ] and that "consumers do not appear to understand the [ESRB/PEGI/IARC] warning" label and thus likely do not derive much benefit from it [ 81 ].What the video game industry has voluntarily done up to present in relation to loot boxes bears resemblance to how the tobacco industry initially reacted to concerns by acceding to the voluntary adoption of relatively ambiguous, text-based warnings (that are ineffective).However, the tobacco industry then fought hard against the adoption of stronger graphic warnings (that are more effective) when these were later proposed.It is plausible that the existing self-regulations that have been adopted were voluntarily adopted, because they have little effect on reducing harm (and, by extension, the industry's commercial interests) but do shine the industry in a positive light as seemingly taking action to address potential harms.Forthcoming loot box regulation must be evidence-based: the measures that the industry proposes should be empirically assessed as to their potential effectiveness.If it is deemed appropriate to immediately bring in certain untested measures to quickly address harms, then those measures must be assessed post-implementation and continually monitored for effectiveness.The adoption of ineffective measures must not be allowed to be presented, and perceived by the public, as the industry taking responsibility.
These two points are relevant beyond the video game regulation context.The present study therefore also speaks to the shortcomings of industry self-regulation more widely.The potential adoption of this approach and the "privatization of regulation" in general [ 105 ] in relation to the technology sector must be treated with due caution and critically analyzed to identify which stakeholders truly stand to benefit and what other consequences (both positive and negative) there might be.For example, in the context of privacy and data protection, often internal data protection officers (DPOs) are tasked with enforcing rules and policing behavior within a company to reduce costs [ 106 ], but this may lead to inconsistent standards being applied between companies.With content moderation, barring certain extreme exceptions, various platforms themselves decide what is the acceptable community standard: marginalized users might be censored on biased grounds [ 107 ].Many intellectual property infringement disputes (e.g., copyright strikes on YouTube) are also being resolved using platform rules [ 108 ], which do not necessarily align with what the law actually says in a certain country and may not provide for adequate due process (see Moviebox Megastores Intl v Rahi [2023] EWHC 501 (Ch)).

CONCLUSION
My recent study [ 61 ] demonstrated that the IARC loot box presence warning label was poorly complied with and enforced on the Google Play Store for mobile games.The present study replicated that study's methodology and found that the labeling requirement was also unsatisfactorily complied with and enforced on other IARC digital storefronts for PC and console games, contrary to the age rating organizations' suggestion that the Google Play Store is a uniquely difficult platform to regulate and that these other platforms would perform significantly better if assessed.Notwithstanding, a reasonably high compliance rate of 89.1% was achieved by the Microsoft Store for Windows and Xbox.This shows that better compliance and enforcement is possible and nearperfect compliance is achievable (at least on platforms with a reasonably low number of games).At present, the compliance situation is generally better on PC and console platforms when compared to mobile platforms.However, the compliance rates remained unsatisfactory and below the 95% target: the Sony PlayStation Store reached 70.3%; the Nintendo eShop managed 54.2%; and the Epic Games Store performed especially poorly (7.1%).The remedial actions (e.g., adding labels) since taken by the various platforms at the request of PEGI are appreciated, but as discussed, they failed to resolve all outstanding issues.In particular, the poor implementation of the IARC system on the Epic Games Store (including the failure to label a highly popular game with loot boxes released after the present study was conducted) is wholly irresponsible.Consumers still cannot confidently rely on the label to provide accurate information about loot box presence, even on these non-mobile platforms.Digital storefront providers, companies, and age rating organizations must improve the labeling and enforcement processes.As it stands, players and parents are therefore advised to not overly rely on loot box-related information disclosures provided by video game companies.It would be their right to demand more accountable forms of regulation (including even legislation) for loot boxes, without which they are forced to treat unlabeled games with due caution as they may still unexpectedly contain loot boxes.More broadly, industry self-regulation must be evidence-based and, in any case, treated with a degree of skepticism and externally scrutinized to ensure compliance and effectiveness.

DATA AVALIBILITY STATEMENT
The underlying data, a full library of screenshots showing the labeling status, Safari .webarchivefiles preserving the webpages visited, and peer review and editorial history are publicly available in the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MS2C .Previous draft versions are available via: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sbtcf.

POSITIONALITY STATEMENT
In terms of the author's personal engagement with loot boxes, he plays video games containing loot boxes, but he has never purchased any loot boxes with real-world money.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The author acknowledges that the copyright of all images and screenshots of video games and websites used in this article are retained by their respective copyright holders.The author uses these copyrighted materials for the purposes of research, criticism or review under the fair dealing

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3.A table published by the IARC showing the various participating digital storefronts and participating rating authorities of the IARC as of February 2023.© 2023 IARC (International Age Rating Coalition).

Fig. 4 .
Fig. 4. Two photographs showing how the label is sub-optimally displayed on the Switch version of the Nintendo eShop.Photograph A shows the top of the product details page.Photograph B shows that the label could only been seen after scrolling down to the bottom of the product page.(Screenshots were not allowed to be taken on the Switch version of the Nintendo eShop.)© 2023 GungHo Online Entertainment & Nintendo.
provisions of copyright law in accordance with Sections 29(1) and 30(1) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThanks are due to Laura L. Henderson and anonymous reviewers (including for consideration but eventual rejection at CHI PLAY 2023) for feedback on previous drafts.CONFLICT OF INTERESTL.Y.X. has communicated in writing with PEGI and the USK by email and has met with PEGI in a remote meeting on 17 March 2023 to discuss the present findings.All written communications are available at the data deposit link.L.Y.X. was employed by LiveMe, then a subsidiary of Cheetah Mobile (NYSE:CMCM), as an in-house counsel intern from July to August 2019 in Beijing, People's Republic of China.L.Y.X. was not involved with the monetisation of video games by Cheetah Mobile or its subsidiaries.L.Y.X.undertook a brief period of voluntary work experience at Wiggin LLP (Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) number: 420659) in London, England in August 2022.L.Y.X. has contributed and continues to contribute to research projects that were enabled by data access provided by the video game industry, specifically Unity Technologies (NYSE:U) (October 2022 -Present).L.Y.X. has met and discussed policy, regulation, and enforcement with the Belgian Gaming Commission [Belgische Kansspelcommissie] (June 2022 and February 2023), the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority [Konkurrence-og Forbrugerstyrelsen] (August 2022), the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and its successor of the UK Government (August 2022 and August 2023), PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) (January and March 2023), a member of the European Parliament (February 2023), the US Federal Trade Commission (February 2023), the Finnish Gambling Administration at the National Police Board [Poliisihallituksen arpajaishallinto / Polisstyrelsens lotteriförvaltning] (March 2023), the Danish Gambling Authority [Spillemyndigheden] (April 2023), the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets [Autoriteit Consument and Markt] (May and June 2023), and the Swedish Gambling Authority [Spelinspektionen] (June 2023).L.Y.X. has been invited to provide advice to the DCMS on the technical working group for loot boxes and the Video Games Research Framework.L.Y.X. was the recipient of two AFSG (Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling) Postgraduate Research Support Grants that were derived from "regulatory settlements applied for socially responsible purposes" received by the UK Gambling Commission and administered by Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) (March 2022 and January 2023).L.Y.X. has accepted funding to publish academic papers open access from GREO that was received by the UK Gambling Commission as above (October, November, and December 2022).L.Y.X. has accepted conference travel and attendance grants from the Socio-Legal Studies Association (February 2022 and February 2023); the Current Advances in Gambling Research Conference Organising Committee with support from GREO (February 2022); the International Relations Office of The Jagiellonian University (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA; Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej), and the Republic of Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska) with co-financing from the European Social Fund of the European Commission of the European Union under the Knowledge Education Development Operational Programme (May 2022); the Society for the Study of Addiction (November 2022 and March 2023); and the organisers of the 13th Nordic SNSUS (Stiftelsen Nordiska Sällskapet för Upplysning om Spelberoende; the Nordic Society Foundation for Information about Problem Gambling) Conference, which received gambling industry sponsorship (January 2023).L.Y.X. has received an honorarium from the Center for Ludomani for contributing a parent guide about a mobile game for Tjekspillet.dk,which is funded by the Danish Ministry of Health's gambling addiction pool (Sundhedsministeriets Ludomanipulje) (March 2023).A full

Table 1 .
Compliance with Loot Box Presence Warning Labeling on Various Digital Storefronts ( N = 72)

Table 2 .
Labeling Status Post-study of Games Identified to be Unlabeled on Various Digital Storefronts Italicization used to emphasize outstanding issues.