Loot boxes are quasi-gambling virtual products in video games that provide randomised rewards of varying value. Previous studies in Western contexts have identified a positive correlation between loot box purchasing and problem gambling. A preregistered survey of People’s Republic of China (PRC) video game players (N=879) largely failed to replicate this correlation, possibly due to low levels of gambling participation (n=87). Statistically significant but modest positive correlations between loot box expenditure and past-year gambling participation, and between loot box expenditure and impulsiveness, were found. Most loot box purchasers (84.6%) reported seeing loot box probability disclosures which the PRC legally requires, but only 19.3% of this group reported consequently spending less money. Most loot box purchasers (86.9%) thought that pity-timers, which increase the winning probabilities of obtaining rarer rewards, are appropriate for implementation. Future loot box research should give greater consideration to cultural contexts, methodological choices, and novel consumer protection measures.

Firms can help consumers by structuring choices in a way that helps them make better decisions --- via nudges. However, firms may instead prefer to profit by making it harder for consumers to make good decisions --- via sludge. We explore evidence for these contrasting strategies with respect to warning label regulations in the world’s largest regulated online gambling market (the UK). Gambling operators provided the required information in an inefficient risk communication format, and this information was made difficult to find in small font on densely-packed help screens. Gambling regulators should make concrete requirements around the wording and presentation of gambling warning labels to ensure that gamblers are well-informed.

Policy makers interested in regulation of the gambling industry have predominantly focused on the frequency with which UK consumers are exposed to gambling marketing. Less attention has been paid to the content of gambling advertising, even though current regulatory codes state that gambling advertising content should not harm nor exploit problem gamblers or other vulnerable persons. Here, we investigate the content of “request-a-bet” TV adverts shown during the 2018 World Cup in the UK. Request-a-bet products allow gamblers to create their own bets with large potential payoffs, which are two established risk factors for problem gamblers. Overall, we found that 46 request-a-bet adverts were shown over 32 relevant soccer matches. Several adverts were designed to nudge gamblers through multiple channels toward bets with large potential payoffs, which problem gamblers might find especially alluring, and which yield high profit margins for the bookmakers. These results highlight relatively neglected concerns about advertising content which are relevant to the regulation of UK gambling advertising.

Responsible gambling campaigns are one measure enacted by a number of statutory bodies and gambling operators in response to concerns about gambling marketing and the accessibility of modern gambling products. For example, since 2015 a number of the UK‘s largest gambling operators have attached the following warning label to TV and shop window adverts: "when the FUN stops, stop" (where the word "fun" is printed in noticeably larger font than any other word). Here we present an initial independent test of this warning label‘s effect on contemporaneous gambling behavior. A short incentivized survey was conducted to mimic the scenario of online gambling advertising, with warning label presence manipulated between-participants. Participants were given a sequence of nine £0.10 bonuses, and on each trial were presented with the possibility to gamble this bonus on a soccer bet, with bet details and payoffs taken from a major gambling operator‘s website. There were 506 unique participants who had all previously indicated that they were Premier League soccer fans and had experience in online sports betting. Overall, participants decided to bet on 41.3% of trials when a warning label was shown, compared to 37.8% when no warning label shown (i.e., descriptively the label increases the probability of gambling). According to the preregistered analysis plan, this difference was not significant, (χ^2 (1)=2.10, p=.15) The "when the FUN stops, stop" gambling warning label did not achieve its aim of prompting more responsible gambling behavior in the experiment.

“Return-to-player” warning labels are used to display the long-run cost of gambling on electronic gambling machines in several jurisdictions. For example, a return-to-player of 90% means that for every $100 bet on average $90 is paid out in prizes. Some previous research suggests that gamblers perceive a lower chance of winning and have a better objective understanding when return-to-player information is instead restated in the “house-edge” format, e.g., “This game keeps 10% of all money bet on average.” Here we test another potential risk communication improvement: making return-to-player messages longer, by clarifying that the information applies only in the statistical long-run. It was suggested that gamblers might understand this message better than the return-to-player at the conclusion of a court case brought against an Australian casino. In this study, Australian participants (N = 603) were presented with either a standard return-to-player message, a longer “return-to-players” message, or a house-edge message. The longer return-to-players message was understood correctly more frequently than the return-to-player message, but the house-edge message was understood best of all. Participants perceived the lowest chance of winning with the longer return-to-players message. The house-edge format appears easiest for gamblers to correctly understand, but longer warning labels might be the best at warning gamblers about the long-run costs of gambling on electronic gambling machines.