The Legal Ambiguity Around Loot Boxes in India
Abstract
Loot boxes in games such as BGMI mirror the blind-box psychology of collectibles such as Labubu and use randomized rewards to trigger dopamine-driven spending. Loot boxes have remained under a legal gray zone, being neither money-gaming nor simple cosmetics as esports now has been formalized in India under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. International courts have a split view, Belgium classifying paid boxes as gambling while Netherlands’ courts disagree. Ownership is also fragmented across developers, players, and licensors, with skins getting involved in layered IP rights. The regulatory framework of India hasn’t till date addressed this ambiguity and have left studios and esports stakeholders to navigate the undefined territory and have raised urgent questions about classification before the courts are forced to decide.
The Midnight Crate Drop: How BGMI’s Loot Boxes Hook Players
Suddenly, at midnight, a new BGMI crate drops and within a few minutes, hundreds and thousands of players start spending real time cash on it, which doesn’t even give them the guarantee of getting the rare skin, it is just a chance. The animation, the suspense, the dopamine hit when there is a flash on the screen of the gold-tier loot, and it is the same blind box psychology that has made videos like Labubu unboxing go viral. As the esports and real-money gaming sectors are growing very rapidly in India, the loot-box mechanics are now facing the same scrutiny that the collectible toys had once dodged. This raises two questions, firstly, is this clever IP licensing, or repackaged gambling and secondly, when a skin gets merchandised across tournaments and physical tie-ins, who the actual owner of that character is.
Same Dopamine, Different Box: Loot Boxes vs. Labubu’s Blind-Box Craze
BGMI returned to the Indian gaming scene, after surviving a security ban in 2023 and has remained active till date but under a three-month government monitoring period with daily playtime caps, and data-localisation rules, which Krafton has built in order to make the comeback of this game around the stricter data localization, content moderation, and Indian server requirements. The bigger problem is the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which has imposed a complete ban on the online games that involve money and covers chance, skill and hybrid formats, while officially recognising e-sports as a legitimate competitive sport. There exist significant constitutional challenges pending before the Supreme Court wherein esports have carved out as the “safe” category whereas loot boxes and skins sit in an awkward position which is not quite money gaming and not quite simple cosmetics either.
BGMI’s Comeback and India’s New Online Gaming Law
The way that Labubu’s blind box model works is that on a simple promise of paying a fixed price, getting a sealed box and the person wouldn’t know the rarity of the figure until he opens it. Loot boxes and gacha pulls also run on this identical script but in a digital form, wherein real money or the in-game currency buys you a randomized skin, weapon wrap, or a character drop instead of getting a vinyl toy. Both of these uses and exploit the same mechanism where the rewards are delivered unpredictably and it triggers a stronger dopamine response than the predictable ones. There are several researchers who study this gacha system and they describe these rarity tiers function exactly like slot-machine odds, where the rarer items are always linked to higher value.
Inside the Gacha Script: Why Randomized Rewards Work Like Slot Machines
The “innovation” case treats the loot boxes as a licensing and monetization chance, with cosmetic-only skins with no stat boosts or no pay to win and lets studios fund the free-to-play games while creating tradeable and brandable IP across the tournaments and merch. The “gambling” case points to the structure itself wherein real money is at stake for a randomized chance of value. The Belgium court in 2018 ruled that these types of paid loot boxes come under illegal gambling, which they reaffirmed in 2025 and held that loot boxes meet all the four elements of a game of chance. Netherlands’ highest court on the other hand overturned its own regulator’s gambling finding against EA and showed that similar EU statutes also have slit on the answer. In India, the legal commentators argue that the loot boxes do not come under the legal definition of gambling as the element of wagering or staking money on an uncertain event is missing, but it remains a highly contested issue.
Innovation or Gambling? The Global Legal Split on Loot Boxes
There exist multiple layers to the ownership like the base game and its characters belong to the developer/publishers who is the one that controls the gameplay, characters, and assets such as video, streaming, or in-person tournaments, as the copyright sits with them and not with the teams or the leagues. Skins are created in collaboration with the famous players or streamers who grant the developer a perpetual, worldwide, and a non-exclusive licence over the design. Esports organizations and tournament operators then require separate licenses from the game publishers to display their gameplay commercially, while the players own only narrow rights like their own name, face, and likeliness over everything else.
Who Really Owns a Skin? Untangling Developer, Player, and Esports IP Rights
For the studios, there is a clear global pattern, as probability-disclosure requirements now exist in Taiwan, South Korea, and China along with gambling-law enforcement in Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the UK, meaning that the odds transparency is now becoming a baseline practice and is now not optional. For the Indian regulators, a workable framework would need to distinguish skins from the real-money wagering, something that neither the PROGA nor the Public Gambling Act does, rather than leaving studios, players, and merchandisers to interpret the ambiguous statutes case by case.
The Purchase-Ownership Gap: Does Buying a Crate Buy You Anything?
The most essential question on which PROGA is entirely silent is what a player actually acquires when he opens a crate. Copyright in a skin’s artwork is vested with the developer or the publisher as creator, or is licensed to them by a collaborating player, and never passes to the buyer. Under standard End User Licence Agreements, as used by companies like Krafton, Valve, and EA, purchased skin grants only a limited, revocable, non-transferable licence to use it in-game, and not a proprietary interest. It is not the same as a Labubu figurine which is a tangible object that the buyer owns and what he can resell freely, it is a skin that can typically be traded only through the developer’s marketplace and on the developer’s terms. As at present, there is no Indian statute that recognises virtual property, this contractual language fills the vacuum that the players buy a chance and a licence, and not a thing.
Conclusion
The loot boxes occupy the same psychological territory as that of the Labubu’s blind boxes but India’s legal framework hasn’t been able to catch up, as PROGA bans money games without naming skins, while the ownership of “character is split across the developer, player, and merch chains. The gap that is the sharpest is that buying a crate confers a licence, not a property right, a distinction that India’s law has not yet drawn. As the esports industry now formalizes in India, the real question isn’t whether skins resemble gambling but whether anyone would define them before the courts are forced to do it.
References
Vidushpat Singhania (Krida Legal), ‘India’s complete ban on real-money skill gaming is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny’ (Yogonet International, 24 Dec 2025), [www.yogonet.com/international/news/2025/12/24/116795]
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 (21 Aug 2025), [static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/aug/doc2025821618101.pdf]
XPPen, ‘Is PUBG Mobile (BGMI) Banned in India?’ (16 Aug 2025), [www.xp-pen.com/blog/is-pubg-banned-in-india.html]
Accelerated Capital, ‘Lotteries, Gachapon (ガチャポン), and Metaverse Loot Boxes’ (20 Sep 2021), [acceleratedcapital.substack.com/p/lotteries-gachapon-and-metaverse]
Larche CJ, Chini K, Lee C, Dixon MJ and Fernandes M, ‘Rare Loot Box Rewards Trigger Larger Arousal and Reward Responses, and Greater Urge to Open More Loot Boxes’ (2020) Journal of Gambling Studies 36, 141–163
Taylor Wessing, ‘An iPhone, a Gambling Problem, and the Loot Box Debate: Antwerp Enterprise Court’s LS v. Apple Ruling’ (21 Mar 2025), [www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/03/an-iphone-a-gambling-problem-and-the-loot-box-debate]
Promise Legal Staff, ‘Loot Box Laws by Jurisdiction: What Game Studios Must Know in 2025’ (Promise Legal, 9 May 2026), [blog.promise.legal/loot-box-laws-game-developers]
Angad Makkar and Devvrat Joshi (Saikrishna & Associates), ‘Spin, Win, & Sin? Enter Level 1: The Legal Landscape Of Loot Boxes In India Under Gambling Law’ (Mondaq, 5 Sep 2024), [www.mondaq.com/india/gaming/1513750]
Xiao LY, ‘Loot Box State of Play 2023: Law, Regulation, Policy, and Enforcement Around the World’ (2024) Gaming Law Review 28(10), 450–483