Complaints against Hutch Games (A23-1196857; A23-1196862)

• Issue: Rebel Racing failed to disclose the presence of in-game purchases involving randomisation (e.g., loot boxes or so-called ‘random item purchasing’) on the Google Play Store, and F1 Clash failed to do so on the Apple App Store.

• Results: Both store listings were found to have been misleading advertising due to omitting material information (i.e., loot box presence).

• Impact: All app store product listing pages must disclose loot box presence.

Complaints against Miniclip (A23-1216455), Jagex (A23-1216471), and Electronic Arts (A23-1222185)

• Issue: Ads for 8 Ball Pool, RuneScape, and Golf Clash appearing on social media (specifically, Facebook) failed to disclose the presence of (i) in-game purchases in general and/or (ii) loot boxes specifically.

• Results: The social media ads were found to have been misleading advertising due to omitting material information (i.e., the presence of (i) in-game purchases and (ii) loot boxes).

• Impact: Social media ads must disclose in-game purchase and loot box presence.

Complaint against Electronic Arts (A24-1239057)

• Issue: A Facebook ad for 8 Ball Pool failed to visually prominently disclose the presence of (i) in-game purchases in general and/or (ii) loot boxes specifically.

• Results: The ad was found to have been misleading advertising due to failing to visually prominently disclose material information.

• Impact: Ads must must disclose in-game purchase and loot box presence visually prominently.

Complaints against various other companies (including Blizzard Entertainment, Supercell, Argos, Reed Exhibitions t/a MCM Comic Con)

• Issue: Failure to disclose loot box or generic in-game purchase presence.

• Results: Informally resolved through either referral to the ASA compliance team or the provision of advice.

• Impact: The Spring/Summer 2025 issue of the Argos Gamer brochure was compliant after complaints against the two previous issues (A24-1252848).

Complaint against Hutch (A25-1282245)

• Issue: Failure to disclose loot box presence sufficiently visually prominently, as an additional user action of clicking on a hyperlink to expand a textbox was needed to cause the disclosure to be shown.

• Results: The ad was found to have been misleading advertising by presenting material information without sufficient visual prominence.

• Impact: Confirmed that requiring an additional user action before disclosing loot box presence is prohibited.

Complaint against Kabam (A25-1295667) and Nexters (A25-1295789)

• Issue: Failure to disclose loot box presence on app store product listings by companies not based in the UK.

• Results: Initially, various complaints were redirected to the advertising regulators of other countries or discontinued due to the lack of one in certain countries, like the US and China. Most product listings therefore continued to be non-compliant with UK advertising regulation. Subsequently, the ASA remit was expanded to recognise app store product listings as paid-for advertising and therefore regulable even when the company is not based in the UK.

• Impact: Brought all app store product listings for UK users within the regulatory remit.

Complaints against Digit Game Studios (42627) and Playrix (43390)

• Issue: Star Trek Fleet Command and Township failed to disclose loot box presence on the Apple App Store.

• Results: Informally resolved through the relevant company updating their product listings to disclose loot box presence.

• Impact: Confirmed that app store product listings in Ireland must disclose loot box presence.

Complaint against MY.GAMES (2024/00251)

• Issues: Rush Royale, inter alia, (i) failed to disclose loot box presence on the Apple App Store; (ii) failed to disclose loot box probabilities; (iii) failed to provide an equivalent price in euros for in-game purchase offers; (iii) directly exhorted children to make in-game purchases; (iv) falsely advertised paid in-game items as free; (v) failed to disclose the presence of in-game advertising and the identities of the advertisers; and (vi) illegally encouraged children to advertise on the company's behalf.

• First Instance Result: All points were upheld on the basis of Dutch advertising regulations in favour of the consumer, except that point (iii) was not considered due to (iv) having been successful. However, point (iii) almost certainly would have been upheld anyway.

• First Appeal Result: The advertiser made an appeal on all points that was without any merit. The appeal ruling upheld all points of the first instance ruling.

• Final Appeal Result: The advertiser made a final appeal on all points, which was again without any merit. The final appeal ruling upheld all points of the first instance ruling.

• Impact: Besides the specific points, confirmed that, unsurprisingly, basic advertising rules and consumer law also apply to the video game context.

Complaint against Gamebasics [Miniclip NL] (2025/00382)

• Issue: A social media ad for OSM (Online Soccer Manager) shown on Meta-owned platforms failed to disclose the presence of in-game purchases and loot boxes in the game on its face, rendering the advertising misleading by omission and thus dishonest.

• Results: Upheld for breach of Dutch advertising regulations.

• Impact: Confirmed that besides on the app store product page, social media ads for video games must also disclose in-game purchase and loot box presence on their face.