MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409312649 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/xmwgy_v2

Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a longitudinal study on the implementation process

2025· preprint· en· W4409312649 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leon Y. Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNarodowa Agencja Wymiany AkademickiejGambling Research Exchange OntarioEuropean Commission
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)Process (computing)BusinessAdvertisingIndustrial organizationMarketingComputer sciencePsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loot boxes in video games can be purchased with real-world money in exchange for random rewards. Stakeholders are concerned about loot boxes’ similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g., overspending money and developing gambling problems). The previous Conservative UK Government decided to first try relying on industry self-regulation to address the issue, rather than to impose legislation. These self-regulations have since been published by the industry trade body, Ukie (UK Interactive Entertainment). Responding to many stakeholders’ desire for a transparent and independent assessment of their implementation, we assessed companies’ compliance with three empirically testable measures and also whether the rules were actively enforced. The 100 highest-grossing iPhone games were longitudinally examined both prior to the self-regulations coming into effect on 18 July 2024 (i.e., between January and June 2024) and after to check for potential improvement (i.e., between July and December 2024). Disappointingly, widespread non-compliance and non-enforcement were observed. Amongst games with loot boxes, none (0.0%) sought to obtain explicit parental consent prior to enabling loot box purchasing by under-18s. Only 23.5% disclosed loot box presence, and the few disclosures were all visually obscured and difficult to access. A mere 8.6% consistently disclosed the probabilities of obtaining different rewards for all loot boxes found. The rules were not enforced, contrary to Ukie’s promise: all of the games that were non-compliant before the self-regulations came into effect remained non-compliant many months later, despite Ukie and the Apple App Store having been provided with evidence of the contraventions and put on notice to delist those games if remedial actions were not forthcoming. Platforms (e.g., app stores), the advertising regulator, and the consumer protection regulators must better enforce pre-existing rules to ensure adequate consumer protection as already promised. Video games and loot boxes are no longer novel; laws that apply to all industries must also be enforced against this one. Governments are advised against relying on industry self-regulation, especially after repeated demonstrations of its many failings. Stricter legal regulation of loot boxes should be adopted. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3KNYB (date of in-principle acceptance: 25 March 2024).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact→French-language works237,207→