Democrats screw up call for loot box laws for kids

A group of Democrats have sent letters to some of the biggest names in gaming, asking them to voluntarily adopt rules soon to be implemented in the UK, designed, they say, to protect children operating practices in video games. Except that is not at all the purpose of the British code, which makes the whole effort extremely confusing.

Loot chests (paid items in games whose content is revealed only after payment) are now widely viewed as a form of online game, and have even been banned in some countries. However, they continue to be an important part of many major games, with perennial calls for better regulation. This last attempt is therefore nothing new, but it is certainly stranger.

Like The edge reports, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA) wrote a letter to twelve major video game players, including Epic, Activision, Disney and Microsoft . – asking that they extend the new one Age-appropriate design code (AADC) to American children, to protect them from gambling and micro-transactions. While they do seem to go beyond gullibility, which is what the UK code covers.

Next month the UK is introducing the AADC, which means that from September 2 the nature of data collected on children through games, websites and social media is subject to much more regulation. strict. While not a law, the regulation “sets standards” in 15 categories, focusing on “high privacy by default”, not sharing children’s data, and disabling geolocation. by default. He goes further by demanding that “elbow techniques“Not be used to force children to share other data, or” weaken or disable their privacy settings. “

However, the code does not explicitly mention loot boxes or gambling in the game, and never even really hints at it. While the subjects of loot boxes and IAPs were discussed in the UK regulator’s research into ‘harmful use of data’, this is not a factor in the final release. It is certainly a stretch to see how the content of the AADC relates to what is raised in the letter sent to the American editors.

While the AADC aims to regulate the collection and monetization of children’s data from games and social media, the Democrats’ letter also decreases “exposure to violent content” and “online predators,” which no. have absolutely nothing to do with the code they cite. . (In fact, their footnotes refer to entirely different Unicef ​​publications.) The letter continues,

“The prevalence of micro-transactions – often encouraged by nudge – has led to high credit card bills for parents. Loot boxes go one step further, encouraging shopping before a child knows what’s in the game-like ‘package’. Children are particularly vulnerable to the manipulation and peer pressure associated with shopping in the store. the game and loot boxes. Experts suggest that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings and parental controls are insufficient. The AADC represents a monumental step towards child-centered design by default.

Calling for better regulations protecting children from exploitative content such as micro-transactions and loot boxes seems immediately laudable, it is more than a little odd that they are attempting to raise these issues through the AADC, which does not mention either. In reality, the references of the code to the “nudge” specifically relate to manipulation techniques designed to encourage children to volunteer for data protection, while also suggesting that such nudges be used instead to increase privacy, or even promote “health and well-being”. “. Certainly nothing to do with micro-transactions.

Again, the demands Democrats are asking for would mostly be benevolent. Their desire that games for children be designed in their “best interests” and not include manipulative techniques associated with micro-transactions and loot boxes, seems positive. But trying to add it to a foreign regulatory code that has nothing to do with these topics seems strangely misleading. Especially when the majority of the AADC content is already covered by the US COPPA.

The real red flag, however, is this “exposure to violent content”. He dropped into the first paragraph of the letter, then never even hinted at it again. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom has imposed an age rating on games, preventing them from being sold to children if they are rated 12, 16 or 18, this is also a whole other topic, covered by a whole different set. regulations.

The letter ends with a pretty aggressive challenge:

“It is imperative that Congress act urgently to enact strong privacy legislation for children and youth in the 21st century. As we work towards this goal, we urge you to extend to U.S. children and adolescents any privacy enhancements you implement to comply with the AADC. We are also requesting answers to the following questions by August 26, 2021.

1. Do you intend to make any changes to the design or data collection and use of your product or service to comply with the UK Age Appropriate Design Code?

2. Will you implement these changes for users in the United States? If not, why not? If so, will these changes be reflected on a public website or in your terms of service? “

Given the completely erratic nature of the letter, it may not take much for the recipients to quickly reject it. Which seems like a big puff.