REGULATING MONETIZATION and GAMBLIFICATION IN VIDEO GAMES: THE CLASSIFICATION–FUNCTION MISMATCH IN DIGITAL MARKETS

The present article provides a comparative doctrinal analysis of monetized video game features subject to regulatory and judicial review in Europe, the United States, and China. It examines monetization infrastructure, including virtual currencies, payment architectures, and engagement-pressure mechanisms, alongside gamblified systems, including loot boxes, social and sweepstakes casinos, skin gambling, play-to-earn models, and user-generated gambling. Across jurisdictions, these features raise convergent concerns regarding consumer protection and minors’ financial exposure, yet are governed through divergent legal frameworks spanning gambling, consumer protection, financial, and digital law. This divergence reflects a classification–function mismatch, in which legal frameworks anchored in formal categories struggle to accommodate hybrid monetization systems, producing fragmented and inconsistent enforcement. The analysis clarifies current doctrinal positions and identifies areas of continuing ambiguity, particularly regarding virtual value, asset tradability, and platform responsibility, situating video game monetization within broader challenges in regulating digitally mediated markets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Gaming Law Review
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/25725300261503840
Primary Topic
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

REGULATING MONETIZATION and GAMBLIFICATION IN VIDEO GAMES: THE CLASSIFICATION–FUNCTION MISMATCH IN DIGITAL MARKETS

Jan Ivern, Xavier Carbonell, Mark Griffiths
Gaming Law Review
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
article

REGULATING MONETIZATION and GAMBLIFICATION IN VIDEO GAMES: THE CLASSIFICATION–FUNCTION MISMATCH IN DIGITAL MARKETS

Jan Ivern, Xavier Carbonell, Mark Griffiths
article en

Abstract

The present article provides a comparative doctrinal analysis of monetized video game features subject to regulatory and judicial review in Europe, the United States, and China. It examines monetization infrastructure, including virtual currencies, payment architectures, and engagement-pressure mechanisms, alongside gamblified systems, including loot boxes, social and sweepstakes casinos, skin gambling, play-to-earn models, and user-generated gambling. Across jurisdictions, these features raise convergent concerns regarding consumer protection and minors’ financial exposure, yet are governed through divergent legal frameworks spanning gambling, consumer protection, financial, and digital law. This divergence reflects a classification–function mismatch, in which legal frameworks anchored in formal categories struggle to accommodate hybrid monetization systems, producing fragmented and inconsistent enforcement. The analysis clarifies current doctrinal positions and identifies areas of continuing ambiguity, particularly regarding virtual value, asset tradability, and platform responsibility, situating video game monetization within broader challenges in regulating digitally mediated markets.

Gaming Law Review
Nottingham Trent University (GB), Universitat Ramon Llull (ES)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
REGULATING MONETIZATION and GAMBLIFICATION IN VIDEO GAMES: THE CLASSIFICATION–FUNCTION MISMATCH IN DIGITAL MARKETS — Jan Ivern, Xavier Carbonell, et al. · Gaming Law Review (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS