Austria’s Supreme Court has ruled that loot boxes in a football video game do not qualify as gambling under national law, ending a dispute over nearly €20,000 in player spending. The judges observed that loot boxes must be assessed as part of the full game, rather than isolated transactions. The decision overturns earlier lower court rulings and sets a binding precedent for Austrian courts.
Loot Boxes Part of Full Game and Not Individual Transactions, Rule Austrian Supreme Court: Key Insights
- Austria’s highest court has ruled that loot boxes in football video games do not qualify as gambling. The decision rejected a player’s attempt to reclaim nearly €20,000 spent on in-game purchases at online casinos in Austria between 2017 and 2021.
- The judges found that skill remains the dominant factor in gameplay despite the random allocation of digital items. They performed a legal test that asks whether players can form rational expectations of success based on their abilities. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove the game depends mainly on chance.
- The ruling overturns earlier decisions by lower courts that had ordered refunds and establishes a binding precedent for Austrian courts. Judges highlighted that loot boxes are technically integrated into the game, and items cannot be transferred outside the ecosystem.
Court Says Loot Boxes Must Be Judged Within the Full Game
The case concerned a player who bought in-game points with real money between October 2017 and October 2021 to acquire loot boxes containing random digital football characters. He argued that opening the boxes amounted to illegal gambling because the companies involved did not hold a licence.
The plaintiff sought combined repayment of almost €20,000 spent on the game. The Supreme Court rejected that claim and ruled that loot boxes cannot be examined on their own.
The judges observed:
Loot boxes in the video game football simulation cannot be assessed in isolation from the rest of the game. They must be judged in their entirety to determine if they meet the legal definition of gambling.
Under Section 1(1) of Austria’s Gambling Act, gambling is defined as “a game in which the decision on the game outcome depends exclusively or predominantly on chance.” The ruling emphasised that games combining chance and skill must be assessed by whether players can form rational expectations about the result.
The court observed that outcomes that rely entirely on hope rather than justified expectations fall within the scope of gambling. Player ability remains the dominant factor in the football simulation despite the random allocation of loot box content. Judges said skilled players can influence match results through tactics, strategy, and controller dexterity.
The ruling stated:
The player can, through their own skills – namely, their chosen tactics and strategy, as well as their dexterity in operating the controller – control the course of the game with a probability suitable for success, thus establishing a rational expectation of winning.
According to the judges, a game of chance exists when results depend mainly on randomness. They added:
The plaintiff has failed to prove that the game in question is one in which the outcome, within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Gaming Act, depends exclusively or predominantly on chance.
Long Legal Battle Ends with Binding Precedent
The court cited technical factors to support its conclusion. Judges observed that loot box purchases are built directly into the game system. Hence, the digital items obtained cannot be transferred outside the gaming environment. Austria has always maintained a strict stance against illegal gambling. The latest ruling strengthens that narrative, setting a new legal precedent for future cases.
The dispute moved through several Austrian courts before reaching the country’s highest judicial body. Earlier rulings had ordered repayments to players, including a decision requiring €338.26 to be returned and another directing a payment of €10,800. Those judgments treated the packs as unlicensed gambling.
A later appeals decision overturned that approach and allowed the case to proceed to the Supreme Court. Judges there argued the purchases were made for in-game use rather than profit. They also classified the football simulation as a skill-based game.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on 18 December 2025 in case 6 Ob 228/24h closed the matter. The court highlighted that players typically buy loot boxes for gameplay, the process is integrated into the software, and items remain locked within the ecosystem.
The ruling places Austria alongside countries that do not automatically classify loot boxes as gambling when used inside skill-based games. Courts in the Netherlands reached a similar conclusion in 2022. Finland previously took the opposite approach by classifying in-game skin trading as illegal gambling.
The case concludes a years-long argument over the legal status of digital chance mechanics in Austria. It confirms that mixed systems of skill and randomness do not automatically fall under the gambling law. The decision is expected to influence how future disputes over in-game purchases are handled.