technology lawyer

Understanding the legal issues of gamification

HomePrivate: BlogTechnology lawUnderstanding the legal issues of gamification

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

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

  • Top 11 legal tips for selling a technology business

    Top 11 legal tips for selling a technology business

    These tips include asset sale or share sale, intellectual property ownership, legal and accounting due diligence, change of control issues, restraint of trade clauses, key personnel, and more.

    Read more …

  • s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia

    s115A Copyright Act – infringement outside Australia

    This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.

    Read more …

  • Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Find out how the case of Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 highlights the potential risk of trademark infringements to businesses. Read more to discover the case background, takeaways, and tips to protect your business.

    Read more …

  • Electronic document execution by directors

    Electronic document execution by directors

    The Federal Government has issued a ruling allowing companies to sign documents electronically until 6 November 2020. Find out more about how this ruling affects your business.

    Read more …

  • Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.

    Read more …

  • Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?

    Read more …

  • Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    The QCAT decision of 4D Electrical Qld v Greyburn Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 74 shows arbitration can be a more efficient alternative to Court/tribunal litigation. Courts uphold contractual obligations agreed to by parties, proving arbitration is a viable option.

    Read more …

  • $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.

    Read more …

  • Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question.  Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work.   The rights that apply to adaptions…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend