LGC 6.10 - Video Games Ratings Restructuring Act

[RC (a la Frémont)]

LGC 6.10 Video Games Ratings Restructuring Act
banning the business of looting systems in video games

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL COURT RESOLVED.

SECTION I: NAME
1. This bill may be cited as the Video Game Ratings Restructuring Act

SECTION II: DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money

2. Digital video game purchase shall be defined as the purchasing of a video game or other downloadable content, or unlock or the purchase of virtual video game currency digitally through the internet.

3. The Lincoln General Court finds that loot boxes are the video game equivalent to gambling, and therefore should be regulated accordingly

4. The Lincoln General Court finds that digital video game purchases are usually not clearly marked and actively try to mislead consumers, which leads to children making large purchases they never intended to do if they knew the real value of what they were doing

SECTION III: BANNING LOOTBOXES
1. Any video games that contain loot boxes that can be bought with real life currency shall be considered as gambling devices, and therefore shall follow the appropriate federal and regional regulations on gambling where these exist.

2. Therefore the Lincoln General Court takes the right to ban the distribution and sale of loot boxes from video games. Video game producers and distributors shall no longer include or offer loot boxes whatsoever, and remove those concepts from the game or from online stores.

SECTION IV: SANCTIONING

1. If loot boxes are still sold while this bill is enacted, video game producers and distributors shall offer repayments to "sales" done to customers within the period where loot boxes were available during enactment, and will be subject to an additional fine of $50,000,000.

2. In addition, if video games producers repeatedly offend the practice or use the practice of selling loot boxes, they'll be banned for sale entirely throughout Lincoln for an undefined period.

3. If the platform or a third publisher repeatedly offend the practice by offering those loot boxes, the platform will eventually also be banned for an undefined period and be unavailable to visit or interact with.

SECTION V: ENACTMENT
1. This bill shall be enacted 2 weeks after passage

2. Physically distributed video games which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold under the previously standing regulations.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Just bumping this if anyone would like to comment

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just bumping this if anyone would like to comment

Should this be brought up for a vote?

Some explanation i added in the legislation thread:

This is an adaptation of an act that was already voted on in the Atlasian Congress, but due to the attention of NFT's and cryptocurrency in bills as of late in Lincoln, is something i'd like to pass here as well. I have modified some sections, and added section IV

It is also something that was already done in the nation of Belgium, so Atlasia isn't the country to have passed such a bill. It is possible depending on feedback that I would work on some new legislation that would apply to regulating microtransactions in video games as well.

-> The last part has already been voted on and passed.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

I'd like to ask if the exorbitant fine in section IV is truly necessary. $50 million is a lot to charge for this. Maybe we pair it down to the 100 thousands?

[S019]

I hope that my region passes this bill.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bump - this has been sitting since April. Let's work on it.

[Brother Jonathan]

I think, so far removed from initial introduction, we should table or reject this version of the bill and let a current member, if any are so inclined, rework it and reintroduce it. I personally think it makes sense to just reject the proposal outright, since I think regional regulations on this issue are unlikely to accomplish much, but I would be willing to try and rework this bill. We should probably a have a current member as a sponsor in any event.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motioning to take sponsorship of this

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Actually reading this comprehensively, I agree with the concern about the fine being too high. This being universal seems like an overreach as well - not all games are for children. Maybe keep loot boxes for games rated Teen, Mature, or Adult?

I'd also like to change the title, as it makes me think this changes the ESRB system which it doesn't do at all. Maybe "Video Games Looting Regulation Act"?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

My sponsorship is accepted.

---

24 hours to object to this amendment.

LGC 6.10 Video Games Ratings Restructuring Looting Regulation Act
banning the business of looting systems in video games

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL COURT RESOLVED.

SECTION I: NAME
1. This bill may be cited as the Video Game Ratings Restructuring Act

SECTION II: DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money

2. Digital video game purchase shall be defined as the purchasing of a video game or other downloadable content, or unlock or the purchase of virtual video game currency digitally through the internet.

3. The Lincoln General Court finds that loot boxes are the video game equivalent to gambling, and therefore should be regulated accordingly

4. The Lincoln General Court finds that digital video game purchases are usually not clearly marked and actively try to mislead consumers, which leads to children making large purchases they never intended to do if they knew the real value of what they were doing

SECTION III: BANNING LOOTBOXES ON KIDS' GAMES
1. Any video games that contain loot boxes that can be bought with real life currency shall be considered as gambling devices, and therefore shall follow the appropriate federal and regional regulations on gambling where these exist.

2. Therefore, the Lincoln General Court takes the right to ban the distribution and sale of loot boxes from video games., except for games rated 'T', 'M', A', or 'RP - Likely Mature 17+'. Except as just specified, Video game producers and distributors shall no longer include or offer loot boxes whatsoever, and shall remove those concepts from the game or from online stores. games.

3. Where allowed, Loot Boxes may only be included in the game itself, or a store specific to that game. They may NOT be usable within a general store for all company merchandise (ex. Nintendo E-Shop or Similar).

SECTION IV: SANCTIONING

1. Except where allowed above, If loot boxes are still sold while this bill is enacted, video game producers and distributors shall offer repayments to "sales" done to customers within the period where loot boxes were available during enactment, and will be subject to an additional fine of $50,000,000$500,000.

2. In addition, if video games producers repeatedly offend the practice or use the practice of selling loot boxes, they'll be banned for sale entirely throughout Lincoln for an undefined period.

3. If the platform or a third publisher repeatedly offend the practice by offering those loot boxes, the platform will eventually also be banned for an undefined period and be unavailable to visit or interact with.


2. At the discretion of a court of law, repeat offenders may be banned from selling games for a period of time, and the same may apply to the ability of a third party publisher or vendor to sell such games.

SECTION V: ENACTMENT
1. This bill shall be enacted 2 weeks after passage

2. Physically distributed vVideo games (not exempted above) which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold or used under the previously standing regulations, except that the creator of such games will, where possible, remove the lootbox feature from such games via a remotely installable update.

The amendment exempts games rated T or above and stores specific to said games, lowers the fine, changes the title, clarifies and simplifies Section IV, and provides for applicability to previously sold games via remote updates to those games where possible (yep, as of 3ds/switch era, this is actually a thing.).

[Brother Jonathan]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

E, E10+, updateable EC games (the rating has been discontinued for future use) and RP (without the likely mature thing) would be covered. I do want to keep the universal ban for these ratings, but we could ban just the "traded form" for T, M, and RP - Likely M. As far as A rated games go, the rating description explicitly states real currency may be used and they are to only be used by legal adults, so it should be safe to leave them alone entirely.

No, merely randomized output like dungeons in Pokémon is not being criminalized. Read the entire clause at issue. "1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." The use of real money must be present, or it is not subject to these regulations.

[Brother Jonathan]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

E, E10+, updateable EC games (the rating has been discontinued for future use) and RP (without the likely mature thing) would be covered. I do want to keep the universal ban for these ratings, but we could ban just the "traded form" for T, M, and RP - Likely M. As far as A rated games go, the rating description explicitly states real currency may be used and they are to only be used by legal adults, so it should be safe to leave them alone entirely.

No, merely randomized output like dungeons in Pokémon is not being criminalized. Read the entire clause at issue. "1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." The use of real money must be present, or it is not subject to these regulations.

I understand the "real-world money" part, I was just referring to situations where real world money is exchanged for a random outcome, outside of online environments. But overall, that is a small concern as the proposal only deals with loot boxes anyway.

If we can find language that makes this work across all games in regulating the traded form, I think that would be ideal. I am not sure on the best way to draw the distinction in the bill, though, without creating rather cumbersome systems and allowing pretty subjective judgements in terms of regulating these games. I wonder if this might be an issue better left to the federal government, as I don't know if we have the resources to actually effectively enforce this as a region.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

E, E10+, updateable EC games (the rating has been discontinued for future use) and RP (without the likely mature thing) would be covered. I do want to keep the universal ban for these ratings, but we could ban just the "traded form" for T, M, and RP - Likely M. As far as A rated games go, the rating description explicitly states real currency may be used and they are to only be used by legal adults, so it should be safe to leave them alone entirely.

No, merely randomized output like dungeons in Pokémon is not being criminalized. Read the entire clause at issue. "1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." The use of real money must be present, or it is not subject to these regulations.

I understand the "real-world money" part, I was just referring to situations where real world money is exchanged for a random outcome, outside of online environments. But overall, that is a small concern as the proposal only deals with loot boxes anyway.

If we can find language that makes this work across all games in regulating the traded form, I think that would be ideal. I am not sure on the best way to draw the distinction in the bill, though, without creating rather cumbersome systems and allowing pretty subjective judgements in terms of regulating these games. I wonder if this might be an issue better left to the federal government, as I don't know if we have the resources to actually effectively enforce this as a region.

We have sufficient ability to force it within Lincoln, of course we can't control other regions but I think this is enough of a niche matter for us to handle it here.

The amendment above is adopted but we're not done here, I'll try to work on some more language after primaries tonight.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Further Amendment:

LGC 6.10 Video Games Looting Regulation Act
banning the business of looting systems in video games

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL COURT RESOLVED.

SECTION I: NAME
1. This bill may be cited as the Video Game Ratings Restructuring Act

SECTION II: DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money

2. Digital video game purchase shall be defined as the purchasing of a video game or other downloadable content, or unlock or the purchase of virtual video game currency digitally through the internet.

3. The Lincoln General Court finds that loot boxes are the video game equivalent to gambling, and therefore should be regulated accordingly

4. The Lincoln General Court finds that digital video game purchases are usually not clearly marked and actively try to mislead consumers, which leads to children making large purchases they never intended to do if they knew the real value of what they were doing

SECTION III: BANNING LOOTBOXES ON KIDS' GAMES
1. Any video games that contain loot boxes that can be bought with real life currency shall be considered as gambling devices, and therefore shall follow the appropriate federal and regional regulations on gambling where these exist.

2. Therefore, the Lincoln General Court takes the right to ban the distribution and sale of loot boxes from video games, except for games rated 'T', 'M', A', or 'RP - Likely Mature 17+'. Except as just specified, Video game producers and distributors shall no longer include or offer loot boxes whatsoever, and shall remove those concepts from games.

3. Where allowed, Loot Boxes may only be included in the game itself, or a store specific to that game. They may NOT be usable within a general store for all company merchandise (ex. Nintendo E-Shop or Similar).

4. Where allowed, Loot Boxes may only confer in-game benefits like characters, equipment, new levels, etc. . They may not offer out-of-game benefits such as other company products, discounts on other company products, gift cards, electronics, vacations, houses, etc.

SECTION IV: SANCTIONING

1. Except where allowed above, If loot boxes are still sold while this bill is enacted, video game producers and distributors shall offer repayments to "sales" done to customers within the period where loot boxes were available during enactment, and will be subject to an additional fine of $500,000.

2. At the discretion of a court of law, repeat offenders may be banned from selling games for a period of time, and the same may apply to the ability of a third party publisher or vendor to sell such games.

SECTION V: ENACTMENT
1. This bill shall be enacted 2 weeks after passage

2. Video games (not exempted above) which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold or used under the previously standing regulations, except that the creator of such games will, where possible, remove the lootbox feature from such games via a remotely installable update.

3. LGC 6.11, The "Video Games Microtransaction Regulation Act", is modified as follows:

a. In Section 2, Clause 1, strike "usually"
b. In Section 3, add a new Clause 4: "4. Video games rated M, RP - Likely Mature 17+, or A shall be exempt from these regulations."
c. In Section 4, strike "$50,000,000" and insert "$300,000"
d. In Section 5, strike clause 2 in its entirety and insert a new clause 2 as follows: 2. Video games (not exempted above) which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold or used under the previously standing regulations, except that the creator of such games will, where possible, modify the restricted feature within such games via a remotely installable update.

I removed the "usually" wording in Section 2 to ensure this can't be applied to stuff that isn't a video game, and restricted lootboxes to in-game benefits only. I also included a number of modifications to the already-enacted LGC 6.11, which bans memory of credit card information for microtransactions. Microtransactions is basically the non-random form of lootboxes, i.e. microtransaction is pay $5 and get X, lootbox is pay $5 and get ???.  The modifications include removing any applicability to non video games, exempting games rated M or A from those regulations, lowering the exorbitant fine, and making the language in Section 5 mirror the language in Section 5 of this legislation.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment adopted.

Anything further to say on this?

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

I think grants would make the most sense. I'd be open to suggestions as to the total per state.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

FCC exists federally.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

FCC exists federally.

I think generally, with this cleared up, that it would be better to leave this sort of regulation to the FCC then, as opposed to forcing a patchwork system gaming and gambling commissions, where they exist, to try and regulate online activity in a way that they likely have never done before. I still think we should amend this to include grants so that if it does pass it is more workable, but at this point I think it is better left to a federal body to enforce regulations on the issue.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

All right, I'll work on an amendment regarding grants then.
Looking at getting this bill to a vote this coming weekend, held open so the winner of the special to fill Greg's seat can cast a vote on it.
If the bill fails it probably makes sense to repeal LGC 6.11 to avoid bureaucratic confusion, but we'll cross that bridge when/if we get there.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Further Amendment:

LGC 6.10 Video Games Looting Regulation Act
banning the business of looting systems in video games

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL COURT RESOLVED.

SECTION I: NAME
1. This bill may be cited as the Video Game Ratings Restructuring Act

SECTION II: DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money

2. Digital video game purchase shall be defined as the purchasing of a video game or other downloadable content, or unlock or the purchase of virtual video game currency digitally through the internet.

3. The Lincoln General Court finds that loot boxes are the video game equivalent to gambling, and therefore should be regulated accordingly

4. The Lincoln General Court finds that digital video game purchases are usually not clearly marked and actively try to mislead consumers, which leads to children making large purchases they never intended to do if they knew the real value of what they were doing

SECTION III: BANNING LOOTBOXES ON KIDS' GAMES
1. Any video games that contain loot boxes that can be bought with real life currency shall be considered as gambling devices, and therefore shall follow the appropriate federal and regional regulations on gambling where these exist.

2. Therefore, the Lincoln General Court takes the right to ban the distribution and sale of loot boxes from video games, except for games rated 'T', 'M', A', or 'RP - Likely Mature 17+'. Except as just specified, Video game producers and distributors shall no longer include or offer loot boxes whatsoever, and shall remove those concepts from games.

3. Where allowed, Loot Boxes may only be included in the game itself, or a store specific to that game. They may NOT be usable within a general store for all company merchandise (ex. Nintendo E-Shop or Similar).

4. Where allowed, Loot Boxes may only confer in-game benefits like characters, equipment, new levels, etc. . They may not offer out-of-game benefits such as other company products, discounts on other company products, gift cards, electronics, vacations, houses, etc.

SECTION IV: SANCTIONING

1. Except where allowed above, If loot boxes are still sold while this bill is enacted, video game producers and distributors shall offer repayments to "sales" done to customers within the period where loot boxes were available during enactment, and will be subject to an additional fine of $500,000.

2. At the discretion of a court of law, repeat offenders may be banned from selling games for a period of time, and the same may apply to the ability of a third party publisher or vendor to sell such games.

SECTION V: ENACTMENT
1. This bill shall be enacted 2 weeks after passage

2. Video games (not exempted above) which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold or used under the previously standing regulations, except that the creator of such games will, where possible, remove the lootbox feature from such games via a remotely installable update.

3. LGC 6.11, The "Video Games Microtransaction Regulation Act", is modified as follows:

a. In Section 2, Clause 1, strike "usually"
b. In Section 3, add a new Clause 4: "4. Video games rated M, RP - Likely Mature 17+, or A shall be exempt from these regulations."
c. In Section 4, strike "$50,000,000" and insert "$300,000"
d. In Section 5, strike clause 2 in its entirety and insert a new clause 2 as follows: 2. Video games (not exempted above) which have been already printed, manufactured and/or shipped as of the passage of this bill may still be legally sold or used under the previously standing regulations, except that the creator of such games will, where possible, modify the restricted feature within such games via a remotely installable update.

4. For assistance in enforcing this act and LGC 6.11, grants totaling $3.365 Billion shall be allocated among the several states of Lincoln. Specifically:

a. To be used by the Connecticut Division of Special Revenue: $175 Million
b. To be used by the Illinois Gaming Board: $610 Million
c. To be used by the Indiana Gaming Commission: $330 Million
d. To be used by the Maine Gambling Control Board: $65 Million
e. To be used by the Michigan Gaming Control Board: $485 Million
f. To be used by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement: $430 Million
g. To be used by the New York Gaming Board: $935 Million
h. To be used by the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation: $50 Million
i. To be used by the Wisconsin Dept. of Administration - Gaming: $285 Million

4-1. Additionally, the following funds shall be avaliable to any regional government official, including an NPC, enforcing this act:

a. $1.635 Billion for enforcement in PA, OH, MA, NH, and VT.
b. $10 Billion that may be used at the regional level, or given in part to a state, as overflow funds.

4-2. All Grants within 4. and 4-1. will be re-appropriated annually. 

Basically - allocated $5 Billion for general enforcement, allocated it to the states where possible based on their percentage of the total Lincoln Population, and left the balance (5 states have no appropriate enforcement agency for this) to the regional government at-large. Also put in a $10 Billion overflow fund.