Kinding Game Law Review

This weekly update examines three recent legal developments in the gaming industry: miHoYo’s anti-fraud enforcement and supplier blacklist measures; a “reskin” infringement case involving a Three Kingdoms-themed card game resulting in a RMB 5 million damages award based on unfair competition; and Roblox’s launch of AI-powered interactive content generation tools. The article outlines the legal considerations arising from supply chain compliance, the boundary between public domain materials and protectable game design, and the intellectual property and compliance implications of AI-generated interactive content within UGC platforms.

Against the backdrop of a global economic slowdown and evolving regulatory scrutiny over major app distribution platforms, an increasing number of overseas-oriented game companies are exploring the establishment of official website top-up platforms to reduce reliance on channel commissions. Building on the prior discussion of platform policies regarding payment redirection and third-party payment access, this article reviews practical cases of official website payment models adopted by several game companies, including their login mechanisms, purchasable content, regional availability, and qualification disclosures. Based on these practices, it outlines compliance considerations that overseas game companies should focus on when constructing official website payment systems, particularly in relation to account management, price display, promotional methods, and refund policy design across different jurisdictions.

Since 2020, Apple and Epic Games have been locked in a global antitrust dispute over App Store policies. While Epic lost its U.S. lawsuit, it continued its resistance through noncompliance, resulting in a developer account ban. However, the dynamics shifted with the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) coming into force on March 6, 2024. Epic reported that Apple, under pressure from the European Commission, agreed to reinstate its developer account in the EU. The DMA’s provisions, especially Article 5(3) and Article 6(4), require gatekeepers like Apple to allow third-party app stores and payment systems on iOS. Apple’s attempt to ban Epic amid DMA implementation triggered regulatory attention, leading to rapid Commission intervention. This incident not only highlights the DMA’s enforcement teeth but also signals a broader shift in platform governance within the EU. For global developers and digital exporters, especially those dependent on app store distribution, DMA compliance represents a strategic inflection point. Non-compliance risks include fines of up to 10–20% of global turnover, exemplified by the €1.84 billion fine Apple recently faced. As more third-party app stores (e.g., Mobivention, MacPaw) emerge, the EU’s digital market is poised for structural transformation.

On March 5, 2024, 19 U.S. House Representatives introduced a bill requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok’s control within 165 days or face a nationwide ban. In response, TikTok launched two in-app pop-up campaigns urging its 170 million U.S. users to call lawmakers and oppose the bill, framing it as a violation of free expression and creative rights. While such grassroots mobilization is legally permissible under U.S. lobbying norms, it raised concerns over foreign influence, youth mobilization, and potential harm. In contrast, such conduct in China would likely trigger regulatory sanctions under the Cyber Information Governance Provisions, the Cybersecurity Law, and minor protection laws, due to the pop-up’s political nature and its placement in sensitive UI zones. This article analyzes the legal foundations of both jurisdictions, the legal and social risks of mass mobilization via platform push notifications, and concludes that China’s top-down information governance structure leaves little room for such oppositional campaigns to emerge.

This weekly update reviews major legal developments in the game industry, including Tencent’s anti-corruption enforcement actions, a criminal conviction for operating an online casino through fishing game mechanics, regulatory trends concerning AI companionship products, and a large-scale UK class action lawsuit challenging Steam’s commission and platform practices. The article analyzes the compliance risks and legal implications arising from anti-fraud management, gambling-related misuse of legitimate games, emerging AI ethics regulation, and competition law scrutiny of digital platforms.

This article analyzes how game companies can build compliant official website payment systems against the backdrop of global economic pressure and evolving platform regulation. It reviews the regulatory policies of Apple App Store and Google Play regarding third-party payments and examines recent policy developments driven by antitrust regulation in regions such as South Korea, the United States, Europe, and Japan. The article outlines the practical compliance space and regulatory boundaries for official website payment models.

This article examines disputes arising from game companies banning players for using cheat software and subsequently being sued by those players. Through an analysis of representative cases and recent judicial trends, it discusses courts’ views on the validity of user agreements, the legality and reasonableness of account banning measures, evidentiary standards for proving cheating behavior, and issues concerning virtual property and refunds of in-game purchases. Based on case outcomes, the article further outlines practical response strategies for game companies in contract drafting, operational compliance, evidence preservation, and litigation.

In early 2024, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) issued formal warnings to game publishers Electronic Arts (EA), Miniclip, and Jagex in response to consumer complaints about their failure to disclose the presence of loot boxes and in-game purchases in online advertisements. Although ASA’s enforcement mechanism is advisory and non-punitive, the rulings revealed a strict interpretative standard, emphasizing the need for prominent, upfront disclosure under the CAP Code. The ASA ruled that omission of loot box mechanics, even in free-to-play games, constitutes a misleading omission of material information. The article details three representative cases, clarifying the scope of disclosure obligations. Developers targeting UK users are advised to incorporate clear disclosures in all promotional content, including visual indicators, in-game purchase labels, and access to further information (e.g., PEGI tags). The piece concludes with practical compliance recommendations and citations to CAP Code 3.1 and 3.3, which prohibit misleading omissions in marketing communications.

On February 19, 2024, the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) released detailed explanatory guidelines on the disclosure of probabilities for randomized in-game items, following the amendments to Article 33 of the Game Industry Promotion Act and Annex 3 of its Enforcement Decree. These reforms require game companies to publicly disclose the probabilities of obtaining random items through gacha mechanics and other chance-based gameplay. The guidance categorizes the types of random items, outlines the scope of disclosure obligations, and sets forth technical requirements for how and where probabilities must be displayed—including in-game, on websites, and in advertisements. Notably, exceptions exist for free-only items, certain non-profit games, and small enterprises. The article also highlights enforcement risks and outlines scenarios for games published in Korea, including the potential for product delisting or administrative penalties for non-compliance or misrepresentation. This framework applies to domestic and international developers targeting the Korean market, and signals a robust shift toward consumer transparency in gacha-based game monetization.

This article explores the legal strategies game companies should employ to combat the "material leak" (early leak) phenomenon. Through an analysis of a technical contract dispute involving Onmyoji character art, the author clarifies that such leaks constitute both a breach of contract and copyright infringement (specifically the rights of publication and communication via information networks). The author emphasizes that while IP value is important, courts heavily rely on evidence of actual loss, such as additional production costs and negative player feedback, to determine damages. The article concludes with a three-tier protection framework: pre-emptive detailed contracting, mid-term standardized management, and post-leak evidence preservation and aggressive litigation.

This article examines the growing trend of criminal enforcement actions against game companies over publishing license issues. It analyzes jurisdictional, policy, and legal arguments demonstrating why operating games without or with substituted publishing licenses should not constitute the crime of illegal business operation, and warns against profit-driven enforcement that harms the business environment.

This article analyzes the legal risks associated with the live-stream sale of self-made card-based blind boxes on streaming platforms. The authors categorize three types of self-packaged card products and examine the corresponding compliance risks. These include regulatory violations (e.g., sale of prohibited items disguised as blind boxes), consumer protection violations (e.g., lack of proper disclosure or fraudulent probability manipulation), and intellectual property infringement (e.g., unauthorized use of copyrighted characters or trademarks). The article reviews relevant laws and enforcement cases, such as administrative fines for false disclosures and consumer fraud under altered pack probabilities. It also evaluates platform-specific rules, with a focus on Douyin’s (TikTok China) latest enforcement guidelines. In conclusion, the article suggests a tiered penalty framework instead of a blanket ban, balancing regulatory goals with business realities. A forward-looking view is proposed for future articles on collectible card game (CCG) industry legal risks.

Amid global economic pressure, cost reduction and efficiency gains have become a key focus for game companies, prompting many mature publishers to explore official payment platforms as a way to reduce reliance on high channel commissions. This article examines the compliance framework for building official game payment systems in China, with particular attention to real-name authentication, minor protection, and age-based spending restrictions. Drawing on competitor practices, it provides practical compliance recommendations for platform design and operation. The analysis further addresses potential legal risks arising from parallel operation of official payment platforms and third-party distribution channels, including non-exclusive agency arrangements, unfair competition concerns, and conflicts in refund policies. The article concludes that, provided agency agreements clearly define non-exclusive rights, self-operation boundaries, and settlement mechanisms, official payment platforms can serve as a legally viable and strategically valuable tool for improving revenue efficiency.

In joint game development and distribution agreements, disputes frequently arise over whether the delivered game product meets the agreed acceptance criteria. This article discusses how publishers and developers should define and implement acceptance standards to mitigate risks and disputes. Based on judicial practice and case law, it emphasizes the importance of clearly defining objective, quantifiable acceptance indicators—including technical quality, functionality, and data metrics—in the contract. It cautions against vague terms like “to the satisfaction of the publisher” and promotes the use of detailed annexes or supplementary documents to record mutual expectations. The article further explores the legal consequences of failing to agree or implement acceptance mechanisms, citing several cases where courts held publishers accountable for unclear standards. Finally, it advocates for good faith cooperation, communication, and evidence retention during the acceptance phase to reduce legal liabilities and safeguard contractual objectives.

On May 14, 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) imposed administrative fines on Epic Games for using unfair commercial practices targeting minors in Fortnite. The ACM concluded that Fortnite is highly attractive to minors based on its gameplay design, age rating, and licensed merchandise, and that Epic Games could reasonably foresee the presence of underage users. The investigation found that Epic employed misleading countdown timers, artificial scarcity, and direct purchase prompts, which exploited minors’ vulnerability and constituted aggressive commercial practices and “dark patterns” under Dutch consumer protection law. ACM imposed fines totaling €1,125,000 and ordered Epic Games to implement corrective measures, including removing countdown timers, increasing transparency around item availability, extending decision-making time for minors, and strengthening parental controls.

In a landmark civil antitrust lawsuit filed in the District of New Jersey, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), joined by 15 states and the District of Columbia, accuses Apple Inc. of unlawfully monopolizing the smartphone market. The complaint alleges Apple has engaged in a series of exclusionary practices—ranging from suppressing super apps and cloud gaming to restricting cross-platform messaging, smart wearables, and digital wallets—in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. These practices allegedly serve to entrench Apple’s dominance, restrict developer innovation, and limit consumer choice. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to restore market competition, prohibit Apple’s anticompetitive conduct, and impose structural remedies. Apple contends the suit jeopardizes its product design freedom. The case echoes the DOJ’s antitrust action against Microsoft in 1998, and may take years to resolve amid global regulatory scrutiny, including under the EU’s Digital Markets Act. The outcome could reshape antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.

In R v Lakeman [2026] EWCA Crim 4, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) held for the first time that virtual currency in an online game can constitute “property” under section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant, a Jagex employee, unlawfully accessed player accounts in Old School RuneScape, transferred vast quantities of in-game gold, and converted them into Bitcoin and cash. At first instance, the trial court ruled that the gold was merely information and therefore not property. On appeal, the Court rejected that view, holding that in-game gold is intangible property: it is identifiable, transferable, rivalrous in use, and has real economic value. The Court emphasised the distinction between software code and the functional digital asset it generates, and confirmed that criminal law property need not mirror civil ownership concepts. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence and recent UK legislative developments on digital assets, the Court concluded that excluding virtual currency from the scope of theft would create an unacceptable gap in criminal protection.

This article examines a lawsuit filed by Skillz against Voodoo, alleging false advertising and unfair practices in a real-money game. The case centers on claims of manipulated matchmaking, the use of bot players, and misleading representations regarding fairness and skill-based gameplay, highlighting broader compliance and consumer protection issues in the real-money gaming industry.

This article reviews a copyright infringement case involving a “reskinned” game, in which a Chinese court held that substantial similarity in core gameplay content constituted infringement and ordered the infringing party to compensate RMB 300,000 in damages. It also discusses judicial standards and enforcement strategies for addressing “reskinning” plagiarism in the game industry.

This weekly column reviews recent legal developments in the game industry, covering operational liability arising from gacha system bugs, criminal liability for account resale involving personal information crimes, corruption risks within game companies, and intensified European regulatory scrutiny over misleading monetization and interface design in free-to-play games.

This article analyzes a recent ASA ruling against an EA game advertisement, focusing on insufficient disclosure of in-game purchases and loot boxes. It highlights the regulatory standards applied by the UK advertising authority and underscores the importance of clear, prominent, and adequate disclosure of probabilistic monetization mechanisms in game advertising.

This article analyzes the WCL add-on controversy in World of Warcraft, focusing on legal issues related to personal information protection and cross-border data transfers. It examines the compliance obligations of players, platforms, and plug-in developers under China’s personal information and data export regulatory framework.

Since the rise of the game user acquisition industry, fraudulent traffic inflation has remained a persistent challenge for game developers. Such practices may violate app store policies, resulting in app ranking removal and wasted marketing expenditure, while also distorting user data, inflating service fees, and undermining fair market competition. In judicial practice, promotion contracts involving traffic inflation or ranking manipulation are often deemed void for violating public order and good morals, leaving game companies unable to claim compensation after being penalized. Moreover, due to difficulties in proving fraudulent data and the absence of clear verification standards, damages are often hard to quantify.

On July 31, 2024, the U.S. Senate passed the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), significantly strengthening protections for minors online. COPPA 2.0 expands coverage to adolescents aged 13–16, restricting data collection, targeted advertising, and cross-border data transfers without consent, while granting parents and teens rights to delete and correct personal data. KOSA introduces a statutory “duty of care,” requiring platforms to proactively mitigate risks related to minors’ mental health, addictive behaviors, and economic harm through product design and recommendation systems, with the highest privacy and safety settings enabled by default. Together, these laws impose heightened compliance obligations on global platforms targeting the U.S. market, signaling a shift toward mandatory, design-based regulation for youth online protection.

This article reports on Turkey’s nationwide ban on Roblox, outlining the legal basis for the access restriction and the regulatory authorities’ stated concerns regarding child protection. It details multiple incidents involving harm to minors linked to the platform, the Turkish regulator’s reasons for intervention, and Roblox’s official response to the ban.

Recently, a copyright infringement dispute involving “live-streaming gift effects,” represented by Kinding Law Firm, achieved a significant breakthrough. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered a final judgment, holding that the disputed gift effects constituted artistic works rather than audiovisual works. By considering the nature of the works, their commercial value, and the circumstances of the alleged infringement, the court reduced the claimed damages from tens of millions of RMB to less than RMB 100,000 and dismissed the remaining claims. This case clarifies the legal classification of live-streaming gift effects and provides important guidance for damage assessment in similar disputes.

Google Ads has announced an update to its “Circumventing Systems” policy, which will take effect in November 2024. Given the high-risk nature of gambling and gaming advertisements, the update introduces enhanced disclosure obligations and stricter account management for certified advertisers. Under the new rules, advertisers holding gambling and gaming certifications must reapply if any material changes occur in their products, regulatory compliance status, or licensing conditions. Failure to do so may constitute a violation of the circumvention policy, which is treated as a serious offense. In such cases, Google may immediately suspend the advertiser’s account without prior notice and permanently prohibit future advertising. The update significantly raises compliance standards for gambling and gaming advertisers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions.

This article, as the second part of the series analyzing Japan’s Blockchain Game Guide, focuses on the Guide’s practical examples concerning gambling-related risks under Japanese criminal law. Through detailed examination of randomized item sales, designated sales, auction mechanisms, and consumable item designs involving NFTs, the article clarifies how blockchain game operators may avoid constituting gambling offenses while maintaining compliant monetization structures.

This article discusses the recently published Blockchain Game Guide in Japan, outlining the legal considerations and compliance requirements for blockchain game operators. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the regulatory landscape, including the applicability of the Fund Settlement Law, the Specified Commercial Transactions Law, and the Consumer Protection Law. The Guide encourages blockchain game operators to adopt clear and transparent practices regarding the issuance and trading of crypto assets, NFTs, and prepaid payment tools, while also addressing consumer protection, criminal risks, and minor protection.

From 22 September 2024, Australia has implemented updated game classification standards targeting video games containing gambling-like features. The new rules focus on two categories: games with chance-based in-game purchases (such as loot boxes), which must now be classified at least M, and games featuring simulated gambling mechanics (such as social casino or slot machine simulations), which will automatically receive an R18+ rating. These changes reflect growing concerns over child protection and research linking gaming mechanics to gambling-related and psychological harms.

This article explores the recurring controversy between animal protection organizations—particularly PETA—and game design involving animals. Through representative cases such as Far Cry 6, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and Elden Ring, it examines the tensions between creative freedom, public perception, and ethical critique. The article further proposes practical design and compliance strategies for game developers, emphasizing content review, positive educational guidance, and transparency, while highlighting the broader role of games in shaping attitudes toward animal welfare and human–nature coexistence.

Recently, India has launched a new round of app bans, focusing primarily on gaming and social media applications. These bans are not limited to Chinese-backed products, and while already installed apps may remain on users' devices, their latest versions have been removed from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. The bans are enforced under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, citing reasons such as national security and privacy protection. India has previously used this legal framework to ban several Chinese apps like TikTok and WeChat, claiming that these apps were stealing user data and transmitting it to servers abroad.

This article examines the legal risks associated with game user acquisition advertising, particularly where promotional content may diverge from actual gameplay or withdrawal mechanisms. Drawing on judicial precedents, it analyzes common player claims—including punitive damages, contract rescission, and refund requests—and outlines corresponding defense strategies for game companies. The article further provides compliance recommendations covering user agreements, evidentiary considerations, and lawful advertising practices, highlighting the dual nature of user acquisition as both a growth driver and a legal risk.

This article analyzes Roblox’s recent updates to its minor protection and parental control policies against the backdrop of intensifying child protection regulation in the United States. It explains how the platform’s enhanced parental consent mechanisms, age-tiered content controls, and new parental account features respond both to ongoing controversies and to emerging legislative developments such as COPPA 2.0 and KOSA. The article further observes that increasingly granular age-based management and compliance-by-design may become a defining feature of the next phase of U.S. minor protection regulation for large-scale online platforms and game products.

This case concerns whether the name of a game that has obtained regulatory approval but has not yet been launched can be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Company A alleged that a third-party platform promoted a game using the approved name “Attack XX,” while the actual downloadable content belonged to Company B’s different game, and claimed that such conduct constituted confusion and infringed upon the game’s “first-mover advantage.” The court held that, to qualify for protection under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, a commercial identifier must have a certain level of market recognition and source-identifying function. A game name that has merely obtained an approval number but has not been put into actual operation generally lacks protectable competitive interest. Moreover, Company A failed to prove that it had suffered any concrete losses due to the alleged conduct. Accordingly, both the first-instance and appellate courts dismissed all claims. The judgment clarifies the limits of legal protection for pre-launch game titles and provides practical guidance on name protection strategies and evidentiary requirements for game developers.

This case clarifies how courts assess copyright infringement involving game advertising materials, particularly in determining joint infringement among affiliated entities. The appellate court emphasized substantive benefit, control relationships, and promotional arrangements in establishing common intent. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence strategy, originality analysis, and careful handling of cooperation agreements in both infringement claims and defenses. For game operators, the case serves as a critical reminder that promotional activities may trigger joint liability even without direct content production involvement.

In recent years, the online gaming industry has continuously strengthened its protection mechanisms for minors, with increasingly sophisticated compliance systems covering real-name verification, anti-addiction measures, account permission controls, and recharge and refund mechanisms. However, in practice, it remains difficult for game operators to completely prevent minors from circumventing anti-addiction systems by using adults’ identity information, or from requesting refunds after making in-game purchases through adult-authenticated accounts. This article analyzes a representative court case to explore the litigation strategies adopted by minors when claiming refunds under such circumstances. It focuses on the allocation of the burden of proof and the key evidentiary factors courts rely on to determine the actual user of a game account. By comprehensively examining evidence such as in-game character names, chat records, login and recharge time patterns, and IP address distribution, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the account and recharge activities were carried out by the minor. Consequently, the refund claim was rejected.

This article reviews several recent developments in the gaming industry concerning consumer disputes, policy incentives, and overseas regulation. In judicial practice, Chinese courts have clarified that refund claims based on alleged false advertising are unlikely to succeed where players’ recharge activities occurred prior to the release of advertisements or after long-term, in-depth gameplay. Similarly, in disputes over cash-out or “red packet” incentives, courts generally reject claims for punitive refunds if the rules were clearly disclosed and services were duly provided. On the policy front, Hangzhou has introduced comprehensive measures to support the global expansion of online literature, dramas, and games, offering substantial subsidies for original content, overseas distribution, technological innovation, and talent development. From a regulatory perspective, New York State is considering stricter child protection rules for online gaming platforms, including enhanced age verification, default privacy protections, AI interaction safeguards, and strengthened parental controls—signaling that child protection is increasingly becoming a market entry requirement rather than a mere compliance bonus.

With the rapid growth of mini-games in the digital entertainment industry, infringement issues have become increasingly prominent, posing significant challenges to original developers. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the legal strategies available to developers facing mini-game infringement, covering the entire enforcement process from evidence preservation and platform complaints to pre-litigation injunctions and civil litigation. It first highlights the importance of lawful and comprehensive electronic evidence preservation through notarization and timestamps. It then discusses the role of platform-based complaint mechanisms, such as those provided by WeChat Mini Programs, in promptly curbing infringement. In urgent cases where ongoing infringement may cause irreparable harm, developers may seek pre-litigation injunctions for immediate relief. Finally, litigation serves as a means to claim damages, including economic losses and reasonable enforcement costs. Overall, the article emphasizes that developers should proactively and systematically utilize legal remedies to effectively combat mini-game infringement and safeguard their legitimate rights.

This article analyzes a landmark game asset infringement case resulting in million-RMB damages. Through a detailed review of judicial reasoning and litigation strategy, it highlights how courts assess copyright infringement, unfair competition, and damages calculation. It further provides practical guidance on jurisdiction selection and evidentiary strategies, offering valuable insights into both offensive and defensive approaches in game intellectual property enforcement.

This article examines whether games that have not obtained an ISBN can still receive copyright protection, based on a representative judicial case. Through analysis of first- and second-instance judgments, it clarifies that the absence of an ISBN does not preclude copyright protection or rights enforcement. The article further provides practical guidance for game developers on evidence preservation, infringement analysis, and litigation strategy, while also cautioning against the operational compliance risks associated with games lacking administrative approval.

This case concerns copyright infringement involving cracked games and the liability of online game distribution platforms. Liuqu Company, the software copyright holder of the online game “Come Fight Me”, discovered that Zhangkong Company, the operator of the “Bamen Shenqi” app, had provided download access to a cracked version of the game without authorization. Liuqu therefore filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court of first instance rejected the claim on the ground that the plaintiff failed to submit the source code for comparison. However, on appeal, the court held that where source code comparison is impracticable, substantial similarity may be determined through the external expressions of the game, such as the user interface, character design, and storyline.

In social-driven games such as MMOs and SLGs, game guilds (GS) commonly play a role in user acquisition, engagement, and monetization. However, in practice, some GS employ improper tactics—such as harassing players, poaching users within competing games, or inducing downloads and in-game purchases through misleading incentives—thereby constituting acts of unfair competition. These behaviors are often highly covert and difficult to evidence, posing significant challenges for rights holders seeking legal remedies. Through the introduction of a judicial case, this article analyzes key practical issues in identifying misconduct, determining liable parties, and collecting evidence in GS-related user-poaching disputes, offering compliance and enforcement guidance for game operators.

This article examines legal countermeasures and litigation strategies for addressing premature leaks of game content, using the Honkai: Star Rail case as an example. It analyzes how undisclosed game content may qualify as trade secrets under Chinese law, reviews judicial reasoning and outcomes, and provides practical guidance on confidentiality agreements, testing safeguards, preservation measures, and criminal enforcement to help game companies mitigate leakage risks and protect commercial interests.

This article analyzes the refusal by the Australian Classification Board to grant an age rating to Hunter × Hunter Nen × Impact due to implied sexual violence content. By examining the Board’s reasoning, past enforcement cases, and Australia’s evolving classification framework, the article highlights the country’s stringent approach to game content regulation and underscores the compliance risks faced by game developers and publishers entering the Australian market.

South Korea’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has approved amendments to the Game Industry Promotion Act, introducing special litigation rules for violations of probability disclosure obligations. Effective from August 1, 2025, the amendments shift the burden of proof to game companies, ease plaintiffs’ difficulties in proving damages, and allow punitive damages of up to three times the actual loss in cases of intentional violations. The law also establishes a dedicated game user dispute relief center. This marks a significant move from administrative enforcement toward strengthened judicial liability. For game companies operating in the Korean market, compliance risks and potential legal exposure related to probability disclosures will substantially increase, requiring comprehensive reviews of loot box, enhancement, and synthesis mechanics.

In February 2025, PEGI announced that the age rating of the roguelike card game Balatro had been revised to PEGI 12, citing the use of fantasy elements that mitigate its perceived gambling aspects. This decision followed a turbulent rating history since the game’s 2024 release, during which Balatro was repeatedly reclassified—at times upgraded from 3+ to 18+—and temporarily delisted in several regions. Although the game’s core mechanics are based on deck-building roguelike gameplay rather than real gambling, rating authorities consistently focused on its poker-inspired presentation. PEGI’s latest adjustment, while still acknowledging the presence of gambling themes, reflects the ambiguity in existing rating standards regarding gambling-related content. PEGI has also recognized the need for more nuanced criteria going forward.

This article provides an outlook on key legal and regulatory trends affecting the online game industry in 2025. It analyzes developments in the protection of minors, intellectual property enforcement, player rights disputes, and gambling-related risks in randomized gameplay. By examining regulatory policies, judicial practice, and enforcement trends, the article highlights the increasing refinement and intensity of game regulation and underscores the need for game companies to adopt proactive and systematic compliance strategies.

This article analyzes a representative case concerning the dissemination of pirated games on a third-party gaming platform, focusing on the attribution of user conduct to platform operators in copyright infringement disputes. Through judicial reasoning and practical litigation guidance, it illustrates how courts assess platform control, duty of care, and intent, and provides actionable insights for game companies seeking to enforce their rights against platforms hosting cracked game content.

In a recent esports sponsorship dispute, the Jinshan District People’s Court of Shanghai clarified that losses caused by fan boycotts or fluctuations in players’ popularity are generally considered commercial risks borne by sponsors unless otherwise stipulated in the contract. In this case, the sponsor claimed damages due to declining sales allegedly triggered by a coach’s inappropriate remarks and changes in a key player’s role, but failed to prove a direct causal link between the club’s conduct and the losses. The court held that the club had substantially fulfilled its contractual promotion obligations and did not commit a fundamental breach. The ruling highlights the inherent risks of esports sponsorship, including the fragility of traffic value, the unpredictability of fan behavior, and the difficulty of quantifying losses. It suggests that sponsors should allocate risks in advance through detailed contractual clauses, while clubs should strengthen conduct management and crisis response mechanisms.

This article continues the analysis of legal risks associated with live-streaming sales of in-game items, focusing on refund risks involving minors, breach-of-contract risks arising from payment channel switching, and other legal risks such as pricing disputes, gambling-related exposure, and potential money laundering misuse. By combining statutory requirements, regulatory practice, and contractual risk analysis, the article provides practical compliance guidance for game companies engaging in live-streaming commerce.

From 2025, Japan has significantly tightened its consumption tax enforcement on overseas game and app developers. Starting April 1, 2025, non-Japanese developers selling paid apps or in-app purchases on the App Store are subject to a 10% Japanese consumption tax, which Apple, as a designated platform operator, is required to withhold and remit on their behalf. Recent enforcement actions—such as tax recoveries of approximately JPY 1.8 billion from Yota Games and JPY 3.5 billion from Epic Games—underscore this regulatory trend. Japan’s consumption tax, similar to VAT, applies broadly to digital services including in-game purchases and premium games. Even without a local entity, overseas companies may still be required to register, appoint a tax representative, and fulfill filing obligations if revenue or capital thresholds are met. Underreporting or tax evasion may result in substantial penalties or even criminal liability.

This article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the compliance risks associated with the live-streaming sale of in-game items in China. It focuses on two core dimensions: qualification compliance, including business licenses and ICP licensing requirements under China’s telecommunications regulatory framework, and consumer rights protection, particularly refund rules for virtual goods and false advertising risks. By combining statutory interpretation, regulatory practice, and platform enforcement trends, the article offers practical compliance guidance for game companies engaging in live-streaming e-commerce.

NetEase’s mobile game Harry Potter: Magic Awakened triggered strong player backlash after it suddenly and retroactively deducted in-game currency earned through prize tournaments. NetEase claimed that some players and studios exploited the system to profit by reselling tournament slots and gems at discounted prices, in violation of the user agreement. While NetEase has a legal basis to recover gains from commercial profiteers, applying a blanket clawback to all players—without prior notice or distinction between normal players and violators—raises serious compliance risks. It may infringe players’ virtual property rights and their right to be informed under China’s Consumer Protection Law. The case highlights the need for clear advance warnings, precise enforcement, and avoidance of retroactive punishment.

On April 18, the Kinding Law Firm Overseas Expansion Team hosted a live webinar focusing on U.S. children’s data protection and COPPA compliance for game publishers going overseas. The session provided a comprehensive overview of the regulatory framework, enforcement trends, and operational best practices related to protecting minors in the U.S. gaming market, with a particular focus on age verification, parental consent, data governance, monetization design, and FTC enforcement risks.

This article analyzes a landmark U.S. court injunction affecting Apple’s App Store policies and its implications for overseas game developers. While Apple has updated its U.S. policies to allow external payment links and prohibit commissions on out-of-app transactions, the article cautions that Apple’s stringent and opaque review practices continue to pose significant compliance risks. It provides practical guidance for game companies considering alternative payment solutions in the U.S. market and emphasizes the importance of cautious, risk-aware implementation.

This article reviews a 2025 report issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority on the sexualisation of women in in-app game advertising. Through multiple enforcement cases, it highlights common compliance risks in overseas game advertising, particularly where suggestive or sexualised content is placed in applications accessible to children. The article further outlines practical advertising compliance guidance issued by the UK Committee of Advertising Practice, providing concrete reference points for game companies conducting advertising campaigns in the UK market.

With the rapid rise of the blind box economy, Pop Mart has built a powerful designer toy ecosystem through probability-based draws and rare “secret editions.” However, extremely low drop rates combined with inflated resale prices in the secondary market have pushed blind box purchases away from ordinary consumption toward speculative, gambling-like behavior. The article argues that if brands directly or indirectly buy back rare items at a premium, a gambling loop of “payment – uncertainty – profit” is formed, potentially triggering criminal liability for operating a casino. Even without direct involvement, allowing rampant market speculation may still induce consumers to buy blind boxes for profit rather than enjoyment. In addition, resale prices far exceeding legal prize limits could conflict with China’s prize sales regulations. The author calls for clearer regulatory boundaries and greater corporate responsibility to prevent blind boxes from turning into tools of financial gambling.

As game IPs grow in influence, fan-made and sold “goods” (game merchandise) have become an important part of fan culture, but they also carry legal risks related to copyright, trademarks, and unfair competition. In principle, selling unlicensed merchandise featuring game characters, names, or logos may constitute infringement. In practice, however, many game companies tolerate small-scale fan sales because official merchandise cannot meet diverse fan demand, fan communities are vital to long-term operations, and aggressive enforcement carries high costs and reputational risks. Some publishers even issue fan creation guidelines or hold doujin events to channel fan creativity into controlled co-creation. The article suggests that fans should follow official policies, avoid large-scale commercialization, clearly label products as non-official, and respect the IP, in order to balance creative passion with legal boundaries.

This article provides a comprehensive compliance guide for game companies expanding into the South Korean market. It systematically reviews key regulatory requirements, including GRAC age ratings, probability disclosure obligations, data compliance duties for overseas operators, and consumer protection and refund rules. By combining statutory analysis with practical enforcement cases, the article highlights common compliance risks and operational considerations, offering actionable guidance for game companies seeking compliant and sustainable entry into South Korea.

This article analyzes the Party Animals infringement dispute to clarify the legal boundary between reference and infringement in game animal character design. Through a detailed review of first- and second-instance judgments, it explains how courts apply the “access + substantial similarity” test, emphasizing filtration of public-domain elements and holistic comparison of original expression. The case demonstrates that infringement may be found where distinctive combinations of original design elements are substantially replicated, and provides practical guidance for both rights enforcement and compliant creation in game art design.

This article provides a practical, step-by-step guide for game companies on conducting and reporting annual compliance audits for the protection of minors’ personal information. Against the backdrop of newly clarified regulatory requirements issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China, it explains why such audits have become a mandatory and routine compliance obligation for the game industry, outlines key audit focus areas, and details reporting entities, materials, and official submission channels. The article emphasizes that minors’ personal information compliance audits are critical not only for regulatory risk mitigation, but also for corporate reputation, user trust, and overseas expansion readiness.

Since Korea introduced stricter gacha probability disclosure rules, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has significantly stepped up enforcement. In 2025, KRAFTON and Com2uS were sanctioned for misrepresenting item and gacha probabilities in PUBG and Starseed. KRAFTON falsely advertised zero or 9% probability items as much higher and promoted a misleading “guaranteed” system, while Com2uS falsely claimed that all equipment granted enhancement effects. Although both companies corrected the issues and provided compensation before the investigations concluded, the KFTC still imposed fines and corrective orders. However, business suspension was avoided due to their timely remediation and consumer compensation. These cases confirm that probability disclosure is now a regulatory red line in Korea.

This annual review examines five key legal developments shaping China’s game industry in 2025, including judicial shifts in gameplay protection, intensified enforcement against black and grey industries, evolving governance of game licenses, stricter scrutiny of blind box mechanisms, and the regulatory impact of artificial intelligence. Through landmark cases and policy trends, the article highlights how courts and regulators are recalibrating the balance between innovation and compliance, offering critical insights for the industry’s legal and compliance strategies in 2026.

As competition in the gaming market intensifies, more games are being shut down due to business, regulatory, or strategic reasons. However, game shutdowns are not merely technical closures; they represent the termination of online service contracts and involve users’ rights relating to virtual currencies, unexpired services, and personal data. Improper handling may trigger disputes, regulatory penalties, or litigation. This article outlines a compliance framework for game shutdowns, including issuing shutdown notices at least 60 days in advance, clearly arranging top-up suspension and asset refunds or transfers, offering multiple compensation options, and deleting or anonymizing personal data in accordance with the law. It also emphasizes the importance of customer service mechanisms and evidence preservation to mitigate dispute risks. A compliant and well-managed shutdown is essential for protecting users’ rights and preserving a company’s long-term reputation.

This article examines the intervention by South Korea’s Game Rating and Administration Committee (GRAC) in response to a user-created game mod on Steam that distorted and demeaned the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement. By coordinating with Valve and relevant cultural and governmental institutions, GRAC successfully achieved the global removal of the content. The article situates the regulatory action within the broader historical and political significance of the Gwangju Democratization Movement, highlighting how content involving historical distortion—particularly when distributed through global game platforms—may trigger heightened regulatory scrutiny and platform-level takedown obligations.

This article analyzes corruption and fraud risks within game companies, focusing on the publishing, user acquisition, and art departments as high-incidence areas for duty-related crimes. Drawing on recent industry cases and operational practices, it identifies common fraud schemes, outlines investigative methods for detecting red flags, and proposes a comprehensive governance framework integrating technical safeguards, process restructuring, and cultural mechanisms. The article emphasizes transparency, data-driven oversight, and internal checks-and-balances as core tools for preventing corruption at its source.

On June 27, NuoCheng’s game globalization team hosted a practical webinar on entering the Japanese market, focusing on settlement law, gacha compliance, and prize promotions. Under Japan’s Payment Services Act, in-game virtual currencies are treated as prepaid payment instruments, requiring registration, security deposits, and disclosures once unused balances exceed 10 million yen. For gacha systems, Japan mandates accurate probability disclosure and uniquely prohibits “complete set” or combination-based draws. In prize promotions, virtual items are regulated benefits, with caps on prize value and total amounts, while social media giveaways not tied to transactions are exempt. Overall, Japan places strong emphasis on financial safety, transparency, and fairness.

On July 7, 2025, Shanghai released new measures to promote high-quality development of the software and information services industry, including a pilot program to treat games developed in Shanghai by foreign-invested companies as “domestic games.” This is a major positive signal for foreign game studios, potentially improving approval speed and success rates for licenses and lowering barriers to entering the Chinese market. Traditionally, imported games face strict quotas and lengthy reviews, while this pilot could streamline parts of the process. However, such games must still comply with China’s content, data security, cybersecurity, tax, and antitrust laws.

In July 2025, Roblox launched a new age-verification system alongside its “Trusted Connections” feature, marking a shift from content filtering to identity-based governance. Users aged 13+ must submit a selfie for AI age estimation provided by Persona to unlock unfiltered chat with other verified users, while teens aged 13–17 must also link with a real-world adult (18+) via QR code or phone number. If AI verification fails, users can submit government ID, and biometric data is deleted after 30 days. Age changes require parental or ID verification. By making age verification a prerequisite for key features, Roblox is responding to child-safety concerns and to evolving global regulations such as COPPA reforms, U.S. state laws, and the UK Online Safety Act.

The ICPEN 2025 Mobile Online Games Enforcement Sweep Report, involving 22 global regulators, found widespread consumer risks in loot boxes, virtual currencies, manipulative design, and child protection. Many games used fake scarcity, countdowns, and intrusive prompts to drive spending, while 46% contained loot boxes but only 14% disclosed them on store pages. Although 78% used virtual currencies, most offered no cash-out or spending tracking, increasing the risk of misleading consumers. These monetization features were just as common in games rated for ages 3+ as in older-rated games, while parental controls remained weak. The report sets a clear regulatory benchmark, signaling that game monetization design is becoming a central focus of consumer and child protection enforcement worldwide.

This article examines the legal risks arising from platforms engaging in game packet-capturing practices without authorization. It analyzes potential copyright infringement and unfair competition liabilities by reference to judicial precedents involving cloud gaming and technical circumvention. The article clarifies liability allocation under direct and indirect infringement theories and proposes compliance-oriented optimization strategies for platforms seeking to mitigate legal exposure.

This article analyzes disputes arising from adults impersonating minors to seek refunds from game companies. Through a representative case decided by the Guangzhou Internet Court, it illustrates how courts identify false litigation based on behavioral and evidentiary indicators. The article further outlines civil and criminal response strategies available to game companies, emphasizing standing defenses, counterclaims for malicious litigation, contractual governance measures, and potential criminal liability for fraud and false litigation. It concludes that robust legal countermeasures are essential to prevent abuse of the minor protection regime.

This article examines administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement pathways against the misappropriation of online game license numbers in China. It analyzes the limited applicability of illegal business operation charges, the potential relevance of document- and seal-forgery offenses, and the comparatively higher feasibility of copyright infringement charges where wholesale copying is involved. The article concludes that administrative and civil remedies should be prioritized, with criminal enforcement reserved for aggravated circumstances.

The First Descendant sparked backlash after AI-generated deepfake videos of influencers were used in TikTok ads without their consent. Original creator videos were edited and altered by AI to make them appear to promote the game, which the creators later denied. NEXON said the ads were part of a Season 3 creator campaign and is investigating the production process with TikTok. The case highlights the legal and ethical risks of generative AI in marketing. South Korea’s AI Basic Act now requires labeling of deepfakes and AI-generated content, with significant fines for violations. Combined with earlier scrutiny of Netmarble over suspected AI art use, the article argues that misuse of AI creates lasting “reputational debt.” To manage risk, game companies should secure explicit consent, apply clear AI labels, adopt internal ethics frameworks, and conduct strict due diligence on third-party partners.

This article reviews judicial trends concerning the misappropriation of online game license numbers in China. It analyzes how courts have traditionally addressed such conduct under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, highlights a recent reversal by the Jiangsu High People’s Court denying license numbers as protectable interests, and critiques that reasoning from a market competition perspective. The article further proposes practical civil enforcement strategies by disaggregating infringement claims into copyright, trademark, and unfair competition dimensions, offering a structured roadmap for game companies seeking to combat license number misappropriation.

Valve announced that starting August 29, 2025, Steam in the UK will implement a credit-card-based age verification system to comply with the UK Online Safety Act (OSA). All UK users who wish to access “mature-rated” game store pages and related community content must opt in by adding a valid credit card to their account. The system verifies the card through a £0 authorization and bank confirmation, and the verification remains valid as long as the card stays on file. Valve explains that this approach follows Ofcom’s guidance that credit-card checks are an effective age-assurance method, and it protects user privacy better than facial scans or ID uploads. Keeping a card on file also discourages account sharing.

In 2023, Konami sued Cygames, seeking 4 billion yen in damages and an injunction, alleging that the game’s core “training system” infringed 18 Konami patents developed through franchises such as Power Pros and Tokimeki Memorial, particularly the support-card-based event triggering system. Cygames countered by filing invalidation requests with the Japan Patent Office, turning the case into a full-scale patent battle. In November 2025, the parties reached a confidential settlement and withdrew all legal actions, leaving the courts without rulings on patent validity or infringement. As a result, the unresolved question of whether game mechanics can be monopolized by patents remains, while Konami’s patent portfolio continues to exert strong deterrent effects across the Japanese game industry, potentially chilling future innovation.

This article examines whether game companies should be legally responsible for unauthorized Apple ID transactions. As cases of minors making accidental purchases and accounts being fraudulently charged continue to rise, disputes increasingly focus on where responsibility lies between platforms and game developers. The article notes that Apple operates a closed payment ecosystem through Apple IDs and directly controls user authentication, billing, and payment processing, making Apple the core controller of the transaction from both a technical and contractual perspective. However, game companies, as providers of digital content, directly profit from these transactions and design in-game systems that encourage spending, which may impose on them a duty of reasonable care in certain situations. The article argues that liability should not be treated as a simple either-or question, but should depend on factors such as whether manipulative design, inadequate payment warnings, or poor dispute handling are involved.

This case illustrates that attempts by game developers to avoid infringement findings through aliases or superficial alterations are ineffective where the core expressive elements of a well-known IP are substantially reproduced. The judgment clarifies the boundary between ideas and protected expression, emphasizing that adaptation infringement depends on substantial similarity in original expression rather than changes in medium. While isolated borrowing of abstract elements may fall outside copyright infringement, bad-faith exploitation of another’s reputation may still trigger liability under unfair competition law. The case provides important guidance for game developers on IP adaptation risks and compliance boundaries.

This article analyzes the legal landscape and practical risks of using AIGC (Artificial Intelligence Generated Content) tools in game art design. It focuses on three core areas: the attribution of ownership, where copyright recognition currently depends on the depth of human "personalized expression" and intellectual input; infringement risks, covering unauthorized training data at the input stage and "substantial similarity" at the output stage; and risk mitigation strategies. The author advises game companies to prioritize using authorized internal datasets, distinguish between public domain originals and copyrighted adaptations, and conduct rigorous similarity checks to safeguard their commercial interests in the evolving AI era.

This article discusses systematic legal strategies for gaming companies following information leaks, emphasizing that post-incident enforcement is crucial in mitigating damages and shaping judicial outcomes. The proposed strategy unfolds in three stages: First, evidence preservation, which prioritizes forensic collection—such as notarization and screen recording—over content deletion to establish the "non-disclosed" status of the content. Second, source tracing and identification, which involves pursuing differentiated liability paths for four key groups: internal employees, outsourced providers, beta testers, and technical data miners. Finally, the selection of litigation paths. In practice, a combined "Copyright + Unfair Competition" model has become the industry standard. While copyright claims are often preferred for their lower burden of proof and broad applicability to creative assets, unfair competition claims (as seen in the "Candou" case) effectively cover non-copyrightable elements like version roadmaps and gacha probabilities. The article concludes that as the judicial framework matures, game leaks have evolved from simple infringement issues into complex legal challenges involving creative expression, market order, and commercial interests. Consequently, companies must integrate legal enforcement into the entire product lifecycle management.

This article analyzes the final judgment of MiHoYo's lawsuit against the website "Candou" regarding leaked information and its landmark significance for the gaming industry. The court ruled that "Candou's" unauthorized publication of extensive undisclosed Genshin Impact content constituted both copyright infringement and unfair competition, awarding 330,000 RMB in damages. The pivotal breakthrough of this case is the clarification that even if a distributor is not the original source of a leak, using "insider leaks" to disrupt commercial operation plans remains illegal. The article further categorizes four typical types of leakers: internal employees, outsourced service providers, closed-beta players, and technical data miners. Legal liabilities for these parties span labor law violations, breach of contract, tort, and even criminal charges. This case signals that game leak disputes have formally entered a comprehensive judicial framework, which broadens the scope of protected objects (such as dynamic visuals) and warns that distributors are no longer in a "safe zone."

Based on the recent termination dispute of the ACG MOBA mobile game Re: Aetatis between the developer (Zhuque Network) and the publisher (Jinyuanbao Duoduo), this article provides a deep dive into the legal risks inherent in the "Developer-Publisher" cooperation model. The core legal conflict centers on whether the publisher's unilateral shutdown constitutes a fundamental breach of contract or an anticipatory breach. The authors offer strategic legal advice for developers (CPs) to build "firewalls" during the contracting stage, such as restricting unilateral termination rights, clarifying the ownership of data assets, and establishing joint fund management. Furthermore, the article outlines crisis management tactics after a dispute erupts, including evidence preservation, issuing counter-announcements to manage public opinion, and seeking preliminary injunctions to protect the game's operational continuity and the developer's commercial interests.

This article explores the legal implications of AI Mobile Assistants (such as ByteDance’s "Doubao") entering the gaming industry. These AI agents can recognize screen interfaces and simulate human operations to perform tasks like "daily grinding", automated information tracking, or even full PVP combat. The authors argue that these behaviors disrupt the gaming ecosystem by hollowing out player engagement and destroying competitive fairness. From a legal perspective, such AI tools may constitute unfair competition under China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Articles 2 and 13) by interfering with normal game operations and violating industry ethics. Furthermore, high-level AI cheating tools risk criminal liability, potentially being classified as programs for "intruding into or illegally controlling computer information systems". The article concludes by urging gaming companies to integrate legal compliance into product design and participate in setting industry standards for AI interaction.

This summary reviews four pivotal developments in the gaming industry: legal enforcement, policy shifts, criminal compliance, and technological innovation. In legal enforcement, Papergames won its final appeal against Migu. The court clarified for the first time that distinctive game elements, such as character personalities and settings, are protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, providing a strategic benchmark for cross-industry IP protection. Regarding international policy, Japan’s "Smartphone Act" officially took effect, mandating the dismantling of app store and payment monopolies. While this promises to reduce costs for developers, it introduces new challenges in data security and regulatory compliance. In criminal justice, the Shanghai courts released a White Paper revealing that game-related crimes are predominantly concentrated in illegal gambling and infringements on corporate rights, characterized by high technical dependency and organized "black-gray" industrial chains. The report calls for a collaborative governance system. Lastly, in technology trends, Chongqing launched the "Starry Sky" plan, focusing on the integration of AI within the gaming sector to boost the R&D efficiency of small and medium-sized teams through policy incentives.