technology lawyer

Understanding the legal issues of gamification

HomePrivate: BlogTechnology lawInternet lawUnderstanding 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

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …

  • ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes

    ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes

    From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.

    Read more …

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

    Read more …

  • AI businesses should have duty of care

    AI businesses should have duty of care

    In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1]  As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies.  If implemented, the…

    Read more …

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

    Read more …

  • Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    The Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] FCA 1611, on 18 December 2025 ordering the winding up of two (2) cryptocurrency related entities after finding that they operated an unlicensed financial services business and an unregistered managed investment scheme in contravention…

    Read more …

  • Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Whether your online business has to comply with the obligations contained in the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (OSA), and related standards and industry codes will largely depend on how your business is classified because of the functionality it provides to end users in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act). 

    Read more …

  • Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – Deepfakes

    Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – Deepfakes

    On 3 December 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss the proposed amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) through the introduction of the Online Safety and other legislation Amendment (My Face Rights) Bill (Cth) 2025 (My Face Rights…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend