In 2018, Belgium made headlines after the Belgian Gaming Commission's report1 concluded that paid loot boxes in video games should be classified as “games of chance. The debate around loot boxes had intensified following the release of games such as Star Wars: Battlefront II in 2017, which featured loot boxes that affected gameplay. This led to an investigation by the Belgian Gaming Commission, which culminated in a report in April 2018 concluding that certain loot boxes constituted illegal gambling under Belgian law.
This classification meant that loot boxes, when paid for, are subject to the strict provisions of the Belgian Gaming Act of 7 May 19992, which prohibits the operation of games of chance without a licence. The Commission ordered that these loot box systems be removed or modified, threatening criminal penalties for non-compliance. This led to several game publishers altering their loot box systems in Belgium to avoid legal repercussions.
Since then, Belgium has remained largely silent on the matter, until the Antwerp Enterprise Court issued a landmark ruling on 16 January 2025 in the case of LS v Apple.3
This ruling is of particular importance, not only because it deals with the classification of loot boxes, but also because of choice of the defendant: the claimant decided to aim its action at Apple Distribution International ("Apple") alone rather than the game publisher, River Game. As a result, the case raises important questions about the liability of platform operators for making games containing illegal loot boxes available to consumers.
Facts
As summarized by the Antwerp Enterprise Court in its decision, the dispute arose from the claimant’s combination of iPhone usage and gambling problem.
The claimant, Mr LS, had downloaded the game Top War: Battle Game (the “Game”) from the App Store. The Game, developed by the Chinese company River Game, included paid loot boxes. Over a period of ten months, Mr LS spent a total of EUR 67,813.03 on these loot boxes. In response to this, he initiated legal action against Apple, arguing that, by hosting the Game, Apple had facilitated the availability of unlawful loot boxes in its App Store.
The Antwerp Enterprise Court was therefore called upon to determine (i) the legal classification of loot boxes, and (ii) the implications of this classification for the platform hosting the game.
Loot boxes: a game of chance under Belgian law?
Belgian law does not provide a specific legal definition for loot boxes. Rather than determining whether all loot boxes are lawful, the Court assessed whether the loot boxes in Top War: Battle Game constituted a game of chance under the Belgian Gambling Act.
The Belgian Gambling Act is based on the principle that the operation of games of chance without a licence is prohibited.4 According to the Act, a "game of chance" includes four key elements: (i) a game component, (ii) wagers, (iii) a chance of winning or losing, and (iv) an element of randomness.5
The Court found that the loot boxes in question met all four criteria. Players paid real money for the loot boxes, which offered unpredictable virtual rewards that could influence game progression, leading to a potential "pay-to-win" situation. This, the Court ruled, made the loot boxes a game of chance, rendering them unlawful under Belgian law.
Platform Liability: Consequences for Apple
Having classified the loot boxes as games of chance, the Court next examined whether Apple could be held liable for hosting the game. Under Article 4(2) of the Belgian Gambling Act, facilitating, advertising, or participating in an unauthorized game of chance is prohibited if the person involved knew the game was unauthorized. The Court found that Apple, by hosting Top War: Battle Game on its App Store, had facilitated access to an unlawful game of chance and thus breached Belgian law.
However, the Court's reasoning raises some uncertainty. Specifically, it did not address whether Apple had knowledge or should have reasonably known about the unlawful loot boxes. Article 4(2) requires that the platform must be aware that it is facilitating an illegal game of chance. The Court did not clearly clarify whether it concluded that Apple was aware, or should have been aware, of the illicit loot boxes in this particular game. This gap leaves open the question of whether a platform like Apple should be held accountable merely for hosting games, or if it must actively monitor for unlawful content.
The Court did look into these questions but only from the angle of hosting providers’ immunity raised by Apple. The Court examined whether Apple could benefit from immunity under the EU's E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC)6, which generally shields online platforms from liability for content hosted by third parties. The Court acknowledged that Apple could not ignore the growing awareness in Belgium that paid loot boxes were likely to be considered unlawful. However, the Court then referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) to determine whether Apple's general knowledge of loot boxes in Belgium should extend to this specific instance of hosting a game with illicit loot boxes.
Conclusion and Implications
The LS v Apple ruling is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first court decision on the classification of loot boxes but it also raises fundamental questions about the liability of platform providers like Apple in relation to the games they host, especially when those games contain unlawful elements like loot boxes. The outcome of this case, particularly the CJEU's interpretation, could have far-reaching implications for the gaming industry and the responsibilities of platform operators across the EU.
As the case continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder that game publishers and platforms must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with gambling laws.
1Gaming Commission, Research Report on Loot Boxes, April 2018. https://www.gamingcommission.be/sites/default/files/2021-08/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf
2Law of 7 May 1999 on games of chance, betting, gaming establishments and player protection (“Belgian Gambling Act”).
3Antwerp Enterprise Court (18th Chamber), 16 January 2025, LS v Apple (A/23/004416).
4Article 4(1) of the Belgian Gambling Act.
5Art. 2, 1° of the Belgian Gambling Act.
6Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 n certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (“E-Commerce Directive”).
