Austrian top court clears FIFA loot boxes

Austria’s Supreme Court has ruled that loot boxes in the FIFA video game series do not constitute gambling under national law, holding that the mechanics require a degree of player skill and therefore fall outside the legal definition of games of chance.

The judgment by the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria’s highest civil court, addresses a long-running dispute over FIFA’s Ultimate Team mode, where players can acquire virtual packs containing randomly assorted digital items, including footballers used to build competitive squads. Claimants had argued that the element of chance in pack openings amounted to gambling, triggering consumer protection and licensing requirements. The court disagreed, concluding that the overall structure of the mode places meaningful weight on player decisions, strategy and skill.

At the centre of the ruling is the court’s assessment of how value is generated in Ultimate Team. Judges noted that while the contents of individual packs are randomised, success in the game depends on a combination of squad management, tactical choices, market trading and gameplay proficiency. That mix, the court said, means the activity cannot be reduced to a pure game of chance in which outcomes are determined predominantly by randomness.

The decision carries significance beyond Austria because FIFA, published by Electronic Arts, has been at the heart of global scrutiny over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling products. Regulators, lawmakers and courts across Europe and elsewhere have wrestled with whether paid randomised digital rewards should be treated like slot machines or lottery tickets, particularly when minors can access them.

In Austria, lower courts had issued differing interpretations in earlier stages of litigation, reflecting the legal uncertainty surrounding digital monetisation. The Supreme Court’s intervention provides a definitive national position, at least under current law, and clarifies that FIFA loot boxes do not meet the statutory threshold for gambling, which requires outcomes to depend predominantly on chance rather than skill.

Legal reasoning in the judgment emphasised that players are not merely passive recipients of random outcomes. The court pointed to the in-game transfer market, where users can buy and sell virtual players using earned or purchased currency, as well as the competitive modes that reward tactical ability and mechanical skill. These elements, judges said, allow players to influence success over time, even if individual pack openings remain uncertain.

Court finds FIFA packs outside gambling law, the ruling effectively states, drawing a distinction between randomness as one component of a broader system and gambling as a regulated activity defined by chance-driven outcomes and financial risk. The court also noted that virtual items obtained in FIFA cannot be legally exchanged for real-world money within the game’s official ecosystem, limiting their resemblance to traditional gambling winnings.

The judgment arrives amid an evolving regulatory landscape across Europe. Belgium and the Netherlands have previously taken a tougher line on certain loot box mechanics, with Belgian authorities treating some paid randomised rewards as illegal gambling. Other jurisdictions have favoured disclosure requirements, such as publishing probability rates, or broader consumer law approaches rather than gambling regulation. Austria’s ruling adds to this patchwork, underlining the lack of a unified European standard.

For game publishers, the decision offers a measure of legal certainty in one major market, though it does not end the wider debate. Critics continue to argue that loot boxes exploit psychological reward mechanisms and normalise gambling-like behaviour, especially among younger players. Player advocacy groups have called for stronger safeguards, including spending limits, age restrictions and clearer transparency around odds.

Electronic Arts has consistently maintained that FIFA’s Ultimate Team packs are not gambling, arguing that players always receive digital content and that skill plays a decisive role in progression and competition. The company has also highlighted its use of parental controls, spending caps and published pack probabilities as evidence of responsible design. The Austrian ruling aligns closely with that position, reinforcing the publisher’s legal stance.

From a consumer law perspective, the judgment underscores the challenge courts face when applying traditional legal categories to digital products. Gambling statutes were typically drafted with casinos, betting shops and lotteries in mind, not interactive online environments where chance and skill are intertwined. By focusing on the predominance of skill, Austria’s Supreme Court signalled a willingness to interpret existing law flexibly rather than stretch gambling definitions to cover new forms of entertainment.