Illegal loot box advertising on social media? An empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Computer Law & Security Review Pub Date : 2024-11-09 DOI:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106069
Leon Y. Xiao
{"title":"Illegal loot box advertising on social media? An empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories","authors":"Leon Y. Xiao","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Loot boxes are gambling-like products inside video games that can be bought with real-world money to obtain random rewards. They are widely available to children, and stakeholders are concerned about potential harms, <em>e.g.</em>, overspending. UK advertising must disclose, if relevant, that a game contains (i) any in-game purchases and (ii) loot boxes specifically. An empirical examination of relevant adverts on Meta-owned platforms (<em>i.e.</em>, Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger) and TikTok revealed that only about 7 % disclosed loot box presence. The vast majority of social media advertising (93 %) was therefore non-compliant with UK advertising regulations and also EU consumer protection law. In the UK alone, the 93 most viewed TikTok adverts failing to disclose loot box presence were watched 292,641,000 times total or approximately 11 impressions per active user. Many people have therefore been repeatedly exposed to prohibited and socially irresponsible advertising that failed to provide important and mandated information. Implementation deficiencies with ad repositories, which must comply with transparency obligations imposed by the EU Digital Services Act, are also highlighted, <em>e.g.</em>, not disclosing the beneficiary. How data access empowered by law can and should be used by researchers is practically demonstrated. Policymakers should consider enabling more such opportunities for the public benefit.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 106069"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001353","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Loot boxes are gambling-like products inside video games that can be bought with real-world money to obtain random rewards. They are widely available to children, and stakeholders are concerned about potential harms, e.g., overspending. UK advertising must disclose, if relevant, that a game contains (i) any in-game purchases and (ii) loot boxes specifically. An empirical examination of relevant adverts on Meta-owned platforms (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger) and TikTok revealed that only about 7 % disclosed loot box presence. The vast majority of social media advertising (93 %) was therefore non-compliant with UK advertising regulations and also EU consumer protection law. In the UK alone, the 93 most viewed TikTok adverts failing to disclose loot box presence were watched 292,641,000 times total or approximately 11 impressions per active user. Many people have therefore been repeatedly exposed to prohibited and socially irresponsible advertising that failed to provide important and mandated information. Implementation deficiencies with ad repositories, which must comply with transparency obligations imposed by the EU Digital Services Act, are also highlighted, e.g., not disclosing the beneficiary. How data access empowered by law can and should be used by researchers is practically demonstrated. Policymakers should consider enabling more such opportunities for the public benefit.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社交媒体上的非法掠夺盒广告?使用 Meta 和 TikTok 广告透明度库的实证研究
战利品盒是电子游戏中类似赌博的产品,可以用现实世界中的钱购买,获得随机奖励。儿童广泛使用这些产品,利益相关者担心其潜在危害,如过度消费。如果相关,英国广告必须披露游戏包含 (i) 任何游戏内购买和 (ii) 战利品箱。对 Meta 旗下平台(即 Facebook、Instagram 和 Messenger)和 TikTok 上的相关广告进行的实证调查显示,只有约 7% 的广告披露了游戏中是否存在掠夺箱。因此,绝大多数社交媒体广告(93%)都不符合英国广告法规和欧盟消费者保护法。仅在英国,93 个未披露战利品箱的 TikTok 广告被观看次数最多,共计 292,641,000 次,即每个活跃用户观看次数约为 11 次。因此,许多人多次接触到被禁止的、对社会不负责任的广告,这些广告未能提供重要的法定信息。广告库必须遵守《欧盟数字服务法案》规定的透明度义务,但其执行方面的缺陷也凸显出来,例如没有披露受益人。研究人员如何利用法律赋予的数据访问权也得到了实际验证。政策制定者应考虑为公众利益提供更多这样的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
期刊最新文献
Automated vehicles, the ‘driver dilemma’, stopping powers, and paradigms of regulating road traffic The dilemma and resolution of data circulation in China: Is data as consideration the solution? Cross-border data flow in China: Shifting from restriction to relaxation? The emergence of EU cybersecurity law: A tale of lemons, angst, turf, surf and grey boxes Illegal loot box advertising on social media? An empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1