A $5 million class action lawsuit was filed against Take-Two (publisher of GTA) on January 11, 2022, over the use of gambling mechanics in the sale of loot boxes in games. The lawsuit, which was originally filed on behalf of a minor and his guardian, is that the loot boxes "psychologically alienate" players from the financial consequences of in-game purchases. Teens are deprived of understanding the correlation between real money and virtual currency; such transactions are made without parental knowledge and are non-refundable.

The defendant's actions in the lawsuit qualify as bad faith because they confuse consumers and cause material harm. The suit is pending in the Northern District Court of Illinois.

Take-Two has not provided an official comment on the lawsuit.

Unlike the game developer, casinos are explicit about the likelihood of winning. If you play at a bona fide casino with Canadian dollars, such as these sites https://topcadcasinos.net/canadian-dollar-casinos/, you can always see the payoff of the games and estimate the odds of success.

It also became known that on March 9, 2022 the Supreme Administrative Court of the Netherlands reversed the decision of the court of the first instance, which obliged Electronic Arts (EA) to pay €10 million for selling lootboxes in FIFA.

EA's dispute with the Dutch Gambling Authority began back in 2020. At that time, the Hague Court ordered EA to pay a fine (from €500 thousand to €10 million) for each week if EA did not remove the feature of the moon boxes in FIFA, which allegedly violated gambling licensing requirements laws. The lawsuit alleged that EA was forcing players to purchase Ultimate Team player packs to increase their chances of winning by regulating difficulty levels.

According to the court, the system of "packs" from FIFA Ultimate Team mode is not gambling under Dutch law. Gambling refers to independent games that are based on chance, and the lootboxes are part of the soccer simulator. FIFA, on the other hand, is not by design a game based on chance. In view of the absence of a violation of the Betting and Gaming Act, the court ruled that there was no basis for the imposition of fines.