Is Apple liable for illegal loot boxes in apps?

In-app purchases and so-called ‘loot boxes’ are a gray area where consumer law and gaming law collide. The Antwerp Enterprise Court, Antwerp Division ruled in a judgment of Jan. 16, 2025 that loot boxes in a popular video game effectively qualify as an illegal game of chance under Belgian law. Whether Apple, as the platform operator, must repay the player's thousands of euros in losses depends on the interpretation of European rules, on which preliminary questions have now been referred to the EU Court of Justice.

The facts: an expensive lesson in a mobile game

The case revolves around a consumer who spent a whopping €67,813.03 between January and November 2021 on ‘loot boxes’ in the game Top War: Battle Game, downloaded from the Apple App Store. The player claims that these virtual treasure chests, whose contents are based on chance, violate Belgian gaming laws.

The plaintiff argues that Apple is at fault by offering and facilitating an illegal game of chance through its platform. He therefore seeks repayment of his lost stake. Apple defends by arguing that it is merely a ‘hosting service’ and enjoys immunity for content provided by third parties (the app developer).

The decision: loot boxes are gambling, but is the App Store immune?

The court makes some important findings in this interlocutory ruling, but leaves open the final decision on Apple's liability.

1. Loot boxes are a game of chance

The court unequivocally confirms that the mechanism of loot boxes in this game meets the definition of a game of chance according to the Belgian Gaming Law. There is:

• Inset: The player pays money.
• Profit or loss: The player can obtain an advantage (or not).
• Coincidence: The outcome is determined at least in part by a random number generator or algorithm.

Since the developer does not have a license from the Gaming Commission, offering this game is illegal in Belgium.

2. Apple's role and European questions.

Apple invokes the ‘safe harbor’ rules from the Electronic Commerce Directive (and the current Digital Services Act). These rules protect intermediaries who passively store data from liability. However, the court doubts that Apple is so passive. In fact, Apple conducts a strict review of apps (“App Review”) and has specific guidelines about gaming.

Because there is ambiguity regarding the application of European law, the court submits preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU):

1. Do the safe harbor rules even apply to gambling activities, given that they are explicitly excluded in the directive?
2. Does software (apps) fall under the concept of ‘information’ to which immunity applies?
3. Is there any oversight by Apple that voids immunity?

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling goes to the heart of platform liability. Whereas hosting providers have traditionally been viewed as ‘conduits,’ we see a shift in case law when these platforms play an active role.

The court explicitly refers to the L'Oréal- and YouTube-ECJ ruling. The key question is whether the service provider is of a “purely technical, automatic and passive” nature. The court found that Apple's policy, which evaluates apps for content such as “offensive content,” is inconsistent with the image of a passive host.

In addition, there is the issue of ‘knowledge. To lose immunity, a platform must have ’knowledge‘ of the illegal activity. Apple knew through reports from the Gaming Commission and international media that loot boxes were problematic in Belgium. The question now before the ECJ is whether general knowledge about the phenomenon is sufficient, or whether Apple had to have specific knowledge about this particular app.

If the Court rules that software sales through a controlled App Store are not covered by hosting immunity, this will have far-reaching implications for all app stores and software platforms in the EU.

What this specifically means

The impact of this case extends beyond just this particular player.

• For gamers and consumers: This ruling confirms that paid loot boxes are considered illegal gambling in Belgium. If the Court of Justice confirms that Apple does not enjoy immunity, it opens the door to massive claims for damages from players who have lost money on such mechanisms in the App Store.
• For app developers: The strict application of Belgian gaming laws is reaffirmed. Developers offering loot boxes to Belgian users without a license are committing a crime.
• For platforms (Apple, Google, Steam): The “umbrella” of hosting immunity is showing cracks. If a platform vets apps for content and makes a profit on transactions, it could potentially be held directly liable for illegal content in those apps. This will presumably lead to much stricter gatekeeping at the front door of the App Store.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Are loot boxes now officially banned in Belgium?
Yes, if they meet the definition of a game of chance (stakes, profit/loss, chance) and the provider is not licensed by the Gaming Commission. The court confirmed that the mechanism in Top War meets this and is therefore illegal.

Can I claim my money back from Apple if I lost money on loot boxes?
At this point, that is not certain. The court has stayed the proceedings pending a ruling by the European Court of Justice on Apple's liability. If Apple does not enjoy immunity, recovery becomes possible.

What is a preliminary question?
This is a question of law that a national court (here the Enterprise Court) asks the EU Court of Justice about the interpretation of European law. The national proceedings are at a standstill until the European Court answers, after which the national court applies that answer in the judgment.

Conclusion

This ruling is an important warning to the tech industry: offering unregulated gaming elements in video games will not be tolerated by Belgian courts. The final decision on the financial liability of platforms such as Apple now lies in Luxembourg. For now, however, the message for consumers remains clear: be vigilant with in-game purchases.