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

  • Australian court orders Google to unmask reviewer

    Australian court orders Google to unmask reviewer

    The case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 has major implications for businesses and online reviewers alike. Learn more about the Court’s decision and what it means for anonymous online reviews by reading the full article.

    Read more …

  • What are sophisticated investors?

    What are sophisticated investors?

    This article provides an overview of the requirements for a person to be a sophisticated investor under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). It covers the definition of ‘person’, the Assets Test and Income Test, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidance, and the complexities of self-managed super funds.

    Read more …

  • Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Former Kleenmaid director, Andrew Young, sentenced to nine years in prison for fraud, criminal insolvent trading and causing $330,000 to be withdrawn from company bank account. Learn more about Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)’s actions to ensure directors meet their obligations and the consequences of allowing companies to trade whilst insolvent.

    Read more …

  • Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    The Australian Government has proposed an Online Safety Act that could significantly change the way businesses manage user-generated content online. Find out how this proposed Act could affect your business and how you can prepare for it.

    Read more …

  • IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.

    Read more …

  • Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…

    Read more …

  • A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision

    A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision

    The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled in favour of Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd, affirming that its disputed products fall under the exception of an Excluded Wagering Service as defined by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), clarifying the distinction between ‘bets’ and ‘games’.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend