Austrian Supreme Court Declares EA Sports FC Loot Boxes and Ultimate Team Packs Do Not Constitute Gambling

Austria’s Supreme Court has issued a ruling with major implications for how courts may interpret loot boxes across Europe, concluding that the loot boxes in EA Sports FC and its FC Ultimate Team mode do not constitute gambling. The decision is already being framed as a clarity moment for the industry, and EA is positioning it as a precedent it can reference as regulatory pressure continues to build globally.

The ruling was first reported by GamesMarkt, which notes that while the court ultimately determined these packs are not gambling, the reasoning still acknowledges that randomness exists within the system. The court’s position centers on the idea that the player’s skill can meaningfully influence outcomes after the packs are opened. In other words, even though the allocation of pack content is random, the court believes a player can still establish a rational expectation of success through gameplay skill, which weakens the argument that the mechanic is functionally equivalent to gambling.

EA responded publicly with an unusually direct victory lap, telling GamesIndustry Biz that it welcomes the decision and that the final ruling provides much needed clarity for both the industry and Austrian players. For EA, this is not just a local legal win. It is a strategic messaging asset, the kind of court backed language that can be cited when other markets explore stricter consumer protection rules.

On the opposing side, Austrian litigation funder Padronus, which represented Austrian gamers in the class action effort, pushed back hard, arguing the judgment is legally flawed and signaling it will continue pursuing other cases already in progress. That matters because this ruling being final does not end the broader legal battle. It narrows the path in Austria for this specific argument, but it does not eliminate the possibility of different outcomes in other jurisdictions or even in future Austrian cases built on different factual framing.

The bigger context is that the loot box debate remains one of the most contested fault lines in modern game monetization. Courts and lawmakers keep running into the same friction point. Most gambling statutes were not written with digital randomized reward mechanics in mind, which creates gray zones where legal definitions lag behind player behavior, game design, and live service economies. That legal mismatch is why similar cases can produce different outcomes country by country, even when the products and mechanics are nearly identical.

This ruling also lands at an awkward time for the industry, because regulatory momentum has not slowed. Some regions are exploring stricter consumer protections, and other countries are already moving toward bans or heavy restrictions on loot boxes. Even when companies win individual cases, the political pressure can still translate into legislative action, especially when public narratives focus on youth exposure, spending psychology, and monetization transparency.

For EA Sports FC specifically, this decision helps stabilize the company’s position in at least one European market, and it gives EA a fresh line of defense if broader regulation intensifies in high value regions. The United Kingdom is the obvious example, because it is both commercially important and politically active on consumer protection topics. Even if courts do not classify packs as gambling, lawmakers can still regulate disclosure, spending limits, age gating, and UI design patterns, which can reshape Ultimate Team style economies without ever using the word gambling.

For now, the industry takeaway is straightforward. Austria’s Supreme Court has delivered another ruling that favors EA’s interpretation, but it may also motivate legislators to tighten laws in ways that courts cannot address under older gambling language. The monetization meta game is shifting, and publishers will likely treat this ruling as a short term shield, not a long term guarantee.

 
Do you think loot boxes should be regulated as gambling, or should the focus be on transparency and consumer safeguards like odds disclosure and spending controls?