technology lawyer

Understanding the legal issues of gamification

Home → Technology law → Internet law → Understanding the legal issues of gamification

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–3 minutes

One of the great things about working with technology focussed clients whether it be as an acquirer of technology, or as the “manufacturer” we often get to advise on a range of interesting legal issues.  Gamification is one of the current buzz words which can present a plethora of legal issues to consider.  Whilst the term has been around for some time, the cost of the enabling technologies is reducing so uptake is increasing.

What is Gamification?

According to Oxforddictionaries.com, gamification means:

“the application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service”

Therefore, gamification can be applied to almost any system which involves scoring points, collecting  rewards and competition with others.  The possibilities for gamified systems are endless.

What are the legal issues?

The first step in advising on the legal issues of gamification is to attempt to understand the broad commercial objectives of the game – and the game itself.  Therefore its preferable that we test the game to determine its commercial objectives.  In some instances the game itself may need to be modified so it’s best to obtain advice before launch!

Jurisdiction

The elephant in the room in any conversation about gamification is which laws apply in the context of a multi-platform, multi-country gamified system.

Gamification may involve both promotion and subsequently supply of goods or services.  It usually involves the collection and dissemination of a variety of information about users which may cross technology platforms and jurisdictions.  Further it’s possible to create virtual currencies, tokens and giveaways which may also give rise to issues pursuant to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA).  Legal analysis of the nature of the property may also be required.  Further the collection of data about individuals may be ‘personal information’ pursuant the Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Gamification raises a range of legal issues which are simply too voluminous to discuss, however the following is a list which would need to be considered in light of the game itself:

  • Intellectual property (ownership and rights to use);
  • Compliance with sections of Schedule 2 of the ACL:
    • Section 18 – Misleading and deceptive conduct;
    • Section 20 – 21 – Unconscionable conduct in connection with goods or services;
    • Section 23 to 28 – Unfair contract terms;
    • Section 29 – False or misleading representation about goods or services;
    • Section 32 – Offering rebates, gifts or prizes;
    • Section 33 and 34 – Misleading conduct as to the nature of goods or services;
    • Section 35 – Bait advertising;
    • Section 44 – Pyramid schemes;
    • Section 47 – Referral Selling;
    • Section 47 – Multiple pricing;
    • Section 48 – Single price;
    • Section 49 – Referral Selling;
  • Privacy Act compliance;
  • Jurisdiction and the choice of law;
  • Whether a permit is required under state based trade promotion lottery laws.

In short there are a lot of legal issues to consider.

Further information

If you need assistance in understanding the legal issues you face in establishing a gamified system, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about technology law

  • Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Court) against Emirati-based Telegram FZ-LLC (Trade License Number 94349) (Telegram), alleging that it failed to comply with obligations to detect, deter and disrupt the distribution of pro-terror material and remove unlawful material from its messaging service. The proceedings, eSafety Commissioner v…

    Read more …

  • Privacy Amendment Bill 2026 proposes Privacy Act amendments

    Privacy Amendment Bill 2026 proposes Privacy Act amendments

    On 31 August 2026, the Australian Government published a Consultation Paper and released an exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026 (Bill), proposing amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).  The Bill proposes amendments to the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) codified in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act. The…

    Read more …

  • Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    The Australian Labor party has introduced an exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 (Digital Duty of Care Bill/Draft Bill) for “consultation”.  The Digital Duty of Care Bill proposes to make a number of minor (and major) amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (Online Safety Act) and adds…

    Read more …

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Drag-along rights: can the majority force minority shareholders to sell?

    Drag-along rights: can the majority force minority shareholders to sell?

    In Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7, the Takeovers Panel stopped a board inserting drag-along rights that would have let the majority force minority shareholders to sell. We explain drag-along and tag-along rights and the Panel’s reasoning.

    Read more …

  • Is a breach of directors’ duties also shareholder oppression?

    Is a breach of directors’ duties also shareholder oppression?

    In Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels [2026] FCA 307, the Federal Court dismissed minority shareholders’ claims that a majority investor’s contracts and dilutive rights issues were oppressive. We explain why a breach of duty is not the same as oppression.

    Read more …

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend