The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn

With climate extremes hitting nations across the globe, disproportionately burdening vulnerable developing countries, the prompt operation of the Loss and Damage fund is of paramount importance. As decisions on resource disbursement at the international level, and investment strategies at the national level, loom, the climate science community's role in providing fair and effective evidence is crucial. Attribution science can provide useful information for decision makers, but both ethical implications and deep uncertainty cannot be ignored. Considering these aspects, we articulate a vision that integrates established attribution methods and multiple lines of evidence within a coherent logical framework.

Abstract The court’s traditional approach to applications by trustees to approve or ‘bless’ the exercise of their fiduciary discretions is one of judicial restraint, but in recent authority, there has been an increasing trend towards judicial intervention in the merits of the trustee’s decision. This article analyses that trend and considers how practitioners can maximise the prospects of successfully securing the court’s blessing for important trustee decisions.

Journal Article Account of profits—the link between profits earned and the breach of the fiduciary duty Get access Toby Graham, Toby Graham Partner and Head of Contentious Trusts and Estates, Farrer & Co, 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LH, UK Email: tbg@farrer.co.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar David Russell David Russell Outer Temple Chambers, The Gate, DIFC, Dubai UAE and 222 Strand, London, UK. Email: David.RussellQC@outertemple.com Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Trusts & Trustees, Volume 30, Issue 3, April 2024, Pages 111–117, https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttae008 Published: 02 April 2024

Loot boxes are gambling-like products in video games that players can buy with real-world money to obtain random prizes. Many countries are concerned by their potential harms and are considering regulation. Industry self-regulation of companies’ own behavior is an alternative approach to direct government intervention through legislation. The self-regulatory age rating organizations in North America and Europe began assigning a loot box presence warning label (“In-game Purchases (Includes Random Items)”) since April 2020. This consumer protection measure has also been introduced to many digital storefronts. My recent study found that only 29% of popular games containing loot boxes were correctly labeled on the Google Play Store. The age rating organizations have seemingly suggested that other digital storefronts with significantly less content would, in contrast, perform significantly better. The present study found that the compliance rates were indeed higher on the Microsoft (89.1%), Sony (70.3%), and Nintendo (54.2%) stores. However, none met the target 95% compliance rate. Concerningly, the Epic Games Store's compliance rate was only 7.1%. Some remedial actions have been taken following the present study: while appreciated, they have failed to address all outstanding concerns. Companies and platform providers must better comply with and enforce the rules. Besides poor efficacy on mobile platforms, the industry self-regulatory loot box warning label is also not sufficiently reliable on PC and console platforms.

Loot boxes are gambling-like products in video games that can be purchased with real-world money to obtain random rewards. Regulations have been imposed in some jurisdictions to attempt to address potential harms. Two recent policy studies assessed companies’ compliance (but more often, non-compliance) with those regulations. The first study found that a supposed ‘ban’ on loot boxes in Belgium was not enforced so the product remained widely accessible. A preprint reporting this was widely publicised by the media. This enhanced awareness led to companies newly complying with the law and helped policymakers to view the practicality of banning loot boxes with more due scepticism. Researchers should consider actively sharing non-peer-reviewed preprint results to protect consumers more promptly. The second study found that, contrary to regulations, many games with loot boxes were not labelled. Subsequent engagement with the media and the industry self-regulators caused remedial actions to be taken: unlabelled games have since been correctly labelled, and non-compliant companies have been punished with (albeit insignificant) fines. The societal impacts of loot box policy studies demonstrate the importance of actively communicating research results to the public through media engagement and challenging companies and regulators when they are not complying with or enforcing regulations.

Loot boxes are gambling-like products found in video games that players can buy with real-world money to obtain random rewards. A positive correlation between loot box spending and problem gambling severity has been well-replicated. Some researchers recently argued that this observed positive correlation may be due to participants incorrectly interpreting problem gambling questions as applying to their loot box expenditure because they see loot box purchasing as a form of ‘gambling.’ We experimentally tested this alternative explanation for the observed positive correlation (N = 2027) by manipulating whether all participants were given the problem gambling scale, as the previous literature generally had done (the ‘non-screening’ approach; n = 1005), or by ‘screening’ participants (n = 1022) by only giving the problem gambling scale to those reporting recent gambling expenditure. Through the latter screening process, we clarified and calibrated what ‘gambling’ means by providing an exhaustive list of activities that should be accounted for and specifically instructed participants that loot box purchasing is not to be considered a form of ‘gambling.’ Results showed positive correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling across both experimental conditions. In addition, a predicted positive correlation emerged between binary past-year gambling participation and loot box expenditure in the screening group. These experimental results confirm that the association between loot box spending and problem gambling severity is likely not due to participants misinterpreting problem gambling questions as being relevant to their loot box spending. However, problem gambling severity was inflated in the non-screening group, meaning that future research on gambling-like products should include gambling participation screening questions; better define what ‘gambling’ means; potentially exclude non-gamblers from analysis; and, importantly, provide explicit instructions on whether certain activities should not be considered a form of ‘gambling.’

Loot boxes are purchased in video games to obtain randomised rewards of varying value and are thus psychologically akin to gambling. Disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards may reduce overspending, in a similar vein to related disclosure approaches in gambling. Presently, this consumer protection measure has been adopted as law only in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In other countries, the videogaming industry has generally adopted this measure as self-regulation. However, self-regulation conflicts with commercial interests and might not maximally promote public welfare. The loot box prevalence rate amongst the 100 highest-grossing UK iPhone games was 77% in mid-2021. The compliance rate with probability disclosure industry self-regulation was only 64.0%, significantly lower than that of PRC legal regulation (95.6%). In addition, UK games generally made insufficiently prominent and difficult-to-access disclosures both in-game and on the game’s official website. Significantly fewer UK games disclosed probabilities on their official websites (21.3%) when compared to 72.5% of PRC games. Only one of 75 UK games (1.3%) adopted the most prominent disclosure format of automatically displaying the probabilities on the in-game purchase page. Policymakers should demand more accountable forms of industry self-regulation or impose direct legal regulation to ensure consumer protection.

Paid loot boxes are video game monetisation methods that provide randomised rewards of varying value. Loot boxes are prevalent internationally: approximately 60% of the highest-grossing mobile games in ‘Western’ countries contain loot boxes (Zendle et al., 2020a), as do approximately 90% in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (Xiao et al., 2021).1 Loot boxes represent an important revenue stream for the industry: the sale of loot boxes in one single game can generate more than US$528,000 per day from just one country alone (Zendle et al., 2020b). Global loot box spending was estimated to have been US$15 billion in 2020, and is estimated to rise and exceed US$20 billion by 2025 (Juniper Research et al., 2021).