Internationally, several policies have been designed to prevent pathological or "problematic" gaming issues in youth, commonly referred to simply as 'game addiction'. Particularly following the release of the World Health Organization's (WHO) "gaming disorder" diagnoses, policy makers may be inclined to enact further policies on this matter. With new data reflecting lack of success for South Korea's shutdown policy, the efficacy of current policy efforts remain in doubt. Given continued controversies regarding whether pathological gaming (PG) or gaming disorder (GD) is best conceptualized as a unique disorder rather than symptomatic of other, underlying disorders, little data has emerged to encourage policy interventions. By contrast, policy interventions at this juncture may risk doing considerable harm and wag the dog in the sense of reifying a pathological gaming disorder that remains problematic and under contentious debate in the field. We advise caution, ethnographic and qualitative research approaches, open science, etiological comprehension, and more time to fully understand whether pathological gaming is the best target for policy interventions and informing clinicians. regarding the efficacy of public policies targeting gaming overuse and provides suggestions for future policies. A Brief Overview of Gaming Overuse Research. Scholarship on gaming overuse began as early as 1983 when perhaps the first article on the topic referred to "junk-time junkies" (Soper & Miller, 1983). In the intervening 36 years a subject search on PsychINFO for ["pathological gaming" OR "video game addiction"] returned 101 articles. So this is definitely a topic of great interest. Several excellent reviews of this topic have been written from varying perspectives (e.g. Hellman et al., 2013; Pontes, 2018). A full summary of this nearly 4-decades old research field is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus our review here is summative. Much of the research has focused on the parameters of pathological gaming. These include issues such as it's conceptual utility, means of diagnosis, biological or neurological markers (if any), distinguishing pathological from engaged gaming (e.g. Charlton & Danforth, 2007), cooccurrence with other mental disorders, as well as cultural reactions to new technology including technophobia and moral panic (Bowman, 2016). Despite several decades of research, opinions among scholars on these issues remain significantly divided. This is not to say that one view is correct and the other wrong, merely to note that a wide ranging literature has not always provided either consensus or clarity on these fundamental issues. Perhaps the one issue most scholars might agree upon is that some individuals play games instead of engaging in other life responsibilities. Yet, whether the games themselves are responsible for this, or whether gaming is a fun activity some people do to distract themselves from other mental health issues remains less clear. Nonetheless, several efforts have moved forward with implementing polici...