Digital Doping: Algorithms vs. Integrity

Digital doping, also known as “Robo-doping,” is a term that raises eyebrows within the esports realm. This practice involves the use of algorithms, software, and technological tools to gain an unfair advantage over opponents in virtual sports. This practice involves exploiting algorithms, software, and technological tools to gain an unfair advantage over opponents in virtual sports. While the concept of doping traditionally pertains to the use of prohibited substances or methods to enhance sporting performance, its extension into the digital realm has prompted a reevaluation of the regulatory framework.

One of the most notorious instances of digital doping involved Nikhil “Forsaken” Kumawat during the 2018 eXTREMESLAND Asia Finals in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO). Using an “aimbot” cheat program, Kumawat could see through walls and automatically target adversaries, giving him an undue edge. His attempt to delete the cheat program and conceal his actions only led to more severe consequences. A five-year suspension from competitive play and a tournament ban followed, underscoring the gravity of digital doping’s impact on the credibility of esports competitions.

In accordance with the WADA Code, doping is defined as the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample, as well as the use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method. Within the specific context of Indonesia’s esports scene, the Esports Federation of Indonesia (“PBESI”) Regulations defines doping as the use of prohibited substances or methods to improve sports performance. This definition aligns with the core principles of the WADA Code while catering to the nuances of esports competition. As demonstrated by the Forsaken case, the application of a prohibited program can result in severe consequences, similar to the use of prohibited substances in traditional sports. The convergence of traditional sports law principles and esports regulations underscores the necessity of a comprehensive approach to combating digital doping as is currently being done by the PBESI.

Bug Exploitation: Unintended Consequences

Bug exploitation is another ethical quagmire that has cast a shadow over the esports landscape. These exploits stem from glitches, vulnerabilities, or unintended features in a game’s code, granting players an unearned competitive advantage. The Valorant community witnessed an example of bug exploitation involving Cypher, a character with an ability called ‘Spycam.’ By manipulating the game’s mechanics, players could transform the remote camera into a makeshift turret, allowing them to eliminate opponents from a safe distance.

Drawing from our law firm’s extensive experience in esports events, it’s evident that esports competitions often employ meticulous technical handbooks. These guides, as demonstrated by events like the SEA Games, serve as comprehensive references for players, outlining the intricate rules, regulations, and protocols governing the event. Such meticulous documentation underscores the seriousness with which esports organizers approach fair play, ensuring that the events transpire on a level playing field.

In this light, the vital matter of preventing bug exploitation warrants significant attention. Organizers should proactively address potential vulnerabilities and unintended features in the game’s code, instituting measures to minimize the likelihood of exploitation. This entails a collaborative effort between game developers, tournament organizers, and players, all of whom share the collective responsibility of upholding the competitive integrity of the sport.

It’s crucial to note that in cases where bug exploitation does occur, the responsibility does not solely rest upon the players. Event organizers should assume a proactive role in preparing for such contingencies, thereby safeguarding the competition’s credibility. A comprehensive strategy that encompasses technical safeguards, player education, and immediate response mechanisms can mitigate the adverse impact of bug exploitation and maintain the event’s integrity. The game developers of competitive games that are considered esports should also ensure as much as possible that there are no bugs to be exploited. To this end, it is essential that there is a collaborative effort to handle this issue.

Unsportsmanlike Behavior: A Dark Stain on Esports

Beyond the confines of code and algorithms lies the realm of unsportsmanlike behavior. This umbrella term encompasses a wide array of actions, ranging from in-game taunting and verbal abuse to out-of-game violations such as intentional disruption of opponents’ gameplay. The esports community has witnessed instances where players exploit pauses or connection issues to gain tactical advantages, throwing sportsmanship to the wind in their pursuit of victory.

These two distinctions of violations are accounted for in Indonesia’s esports law. For in-game violations, the sanctions may depend on the referees overseeing the match, taking into account the specific context and severity of the offense. However, when addressing out-of-game violations of unsportsmanlike behavior, the following sanctions may come into play:

1. Light Reprimand: A formal warning issued to the offending player, reminding them of their responsibilities and urging them to adhere to ethical standards.
2. Severe Reprimand: A stronger form of reprimand indicating a more serious breach of conduct, often accompanied by an official acknowledgment of the offense.
3. Temporary Suspension/Dismissal Membership: A player found guilty of significant unsportsmanlike behavior may face a temporary suspension or, in extreme cases, be dismissed from participating in certain tournaments or the esports organization altogether.
4. Revocation of Professional Esports Athlete Status: A severe measure that may be taken in response to repeated or particularly egregious instances of unsportsmanlike conduct, leading to the loss of the individual’s professional athlete status.
5. Dismissal from PBESI Membership: PBESI membership may be revoked if a player consistently violates ethics codes, demonstrating a lack of commitment to the values upheld by the organization.
6. Fine: In addition to other sanctions, a monetary fine may be imposed on the offender as a form of penalty, aiming to deter future unsportsmanlike behavior.

This understanding of esports law is supported by K-CASE Partner Yudistira Adipratama S.H., LL.M., who is also the Head of Law and Legality at the PBESI and drafted the PBESI Regulations. This underscores the multifaceted approach needed to tackle unsportsmanlike behavior comprehensively. By implementing a range of sanctions tailored to the severity of the offense, esports organizations can promote a culture of accountability, integrity, and respect. Ultimately, this approach not only upholds the reputation of esports but also ensures a fair and enjoyable experience for players and spectators alike.

Upholding the Integrity of Esports

As esports continue to surge in popularity, maintaining a level playing field is paramount. Digital doping, bug exploitation, and unsportsmanlike behavior are challenges that the esports community must collectively address. Stricter regulations, transparent reporting mechanisms, and a commitment to education are essential tools to deter such actions and ensure fair competition. In Indonesia, efforts by the governing body for esports, the Esports Federation of Indonesia, are continually being made to regulate such behavior.

Esports thrive on the dedication and passion of players, teams, and fans. By actively confronting these issues head-on and fostering an environment of integrity and respect, the esports community can safeguard the future of this developing industry.

This is why Intellectual Property (“IP”) protection has become a critical business priority for startups, creators, entrepreneurs, and established corporations alike.

Intellectual Property Is More Than Just a Trademark

Many businesses associate IP only with logos or brand names. In reality, intellectual property covers a much broader range of assets, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, industrial designs, trade secrets, software code, and proprietary business materials.

Whether you are launching a technology platform, developing consumer products, publishing digital content, or building an international brand, your intellectual assets may become some of the most valuable components of your business.

The Risks of Delaying Registration

Many companies wait until their business grows before addressing intellectual property protection. Unfortunately, this delay can create serious legal and commercial risks.

A competitor may register a similar mark first. Digital content may be copied without authorization. Product designs may appear in competing markets. In cross-border transactions, ownership disputes may arise when documentation is incomplete.

By the time these issues surface, resolving them can be significantly more expensive than proactive registration.

Why Professional Legal Guidance Matters

Registering intellectual property is not simply an administrative filing process. Effective protection requires strategic planning, jurisdictional analysis, classification accuracy, prior rights searches, and enforcement planning.

Working with experienced IP counsel helps businesses:

• Identify protectable assets early
• Conduct trademark and ownership clearance searches
• Prepare accurate filing strategies
• Structure regional and international protection
• Reduce risks of rejection, opposition, or future disputes
• Build stronger licensing and commercialization opportunities

IP Protection Supports Long-Term Business Growth

Investors, strategic partners, distributors, and international clients increasingly view intellectual property as a sign of business maturity and credibility. A properly protected IP portfolio can increase enterprise value, support expansion into new markets, and strengthen negotiating positions in mergers, licensing, and commercial partnerships.

In a global marketplace where innovation moves faster than ever, protecting your ideas is no longer optional—it is a business necessity.

The strongest businesses do not wait until problems arise. They secure their intellectual property early, strategically, and with the right legal guidance.

Country-Specific FAQs

Indonesia

U.S.

We hope this FAQ has provided valuable insights into the complexities of esports immigration law. Remember, immigration regulations can be intricate and subject to change. For specific guidance on your unique situation, it’s always recommended to consult with a qualified esports law professional specializing in the relevant region as all the information is attorney advertising and is for educational purposes and use only and is not intended as legal advice.

© 2024 Justin Jacobson Law, P.C. and K-CASE Lawyer

Indonesia’s esports industry continues to grow, attracting more developers, communities, event organizers, and companies interested in hosting esports tournaments.

However, organizing an esports tournament involves more than simply preparing prizes and finding participants. Organizers also need to consider regulations issued by the Indonesian Esports Association (PB ESI), tournament classifications, public event permits, and personal data protection requirements.

Here are the key things you should know before organizing an esports tournament in Indonesia.

1. Esports Tournaments Are Classified Based on Prize Pool

One of the main factors to consider is the total prize pool offered by the tournament.

In general, tournaments can be categorized into three levels:

Small-Scale Tournaments

Tournaments with a prize pool of less than IDR 15 million are considered small-scale tournaments.

Under certain circumstances, small tournaments do not require a PB ESI permit. However, if the tournament involves a physical audience or attracts a significant crowd, additional requirements may apply, including recommendations from PB ESI.

Medium-Scale Tournaments

Tournaments with a prize pool between IDR 15 million and IDR 100 million are classified as medium-scale tournaments.

These tournaments require permission and supervision from PB ESI. Organizers may also need to meet the requirements applicable to registered tournament vendors.

Large-Scale Tournaments

Tournaments with a prize pool of more than IDR 100 million are considered large-scale tournaments.

Organizers must comply with the applicable licensing and supervision requirements established by PB ESI, as well as other requirements related to large-scale events.

2. Tournaments and Esports Leagues Are Different

A tournament and an esports league are not necessarily the same thing.

A tournament generally refers to a competition held within a specific period or series of matches. An esports league, on the other hand, typically involves a more structured and ongoing competition format.

Because leagues generally have a broader and more organized structure, their requirements can be more complex and may involve formal recognition or cooperation with PB ESI.

Therefore, organizers should determine from the beginning whether their planned event is a tournament or a league.

3. Organizers Should Pay Attention to Vendor Requirements

For certain tournaments, organizers also need to consider the regulations concerning esports tournament vendors.

PB ESI recognizes several vendor classes, each with different levels of authority.

In general:

• Class 1 vendors may organize small, medium, and large-scale tournaments.
• Class 2 vendors may organize small and medium-scale tournaments.
• Class 3 vendors are limited to small-scale tournaments.

Companies and event organizers planning to host esports tournaments on a regular basis should therefore understand the registration requirements and vendor classification before organizing their events.

4. Offline Tournaments Require Additional Considerations

Online tournaments generally have different requirements from offline events.

When a tournament is held at a physical venue and attracts a large number of participants or spectators, organizers need to consider regulations governing public gatherings.

Depending on the scale of the event, organizers may also need to obtain a public gathering permit from the police.

For this reason, organizers should not focus solely on the tournament system and competition format. Venue capacity, security, crowd management, and event permits should also be planned in advance.

5. Participant Data Must Be Properly Protected

Tournament registration usually requires participants to provide information such as their names, phone numbers, addresses, identification details, and other personal information.

Such information must be handled responsibly.

Organizers should comply with Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP), including requirements concerning how participant data is collected, used, stored, and disclosed.

For publicly displaying tournament results, for example, using a player’s nickname or gaming name can be preferable to publishing their full personal information.

The terms governing the use and publication of participant data should also be clearly explained during registration.

6. What If the Organizer Is a Foreign Company?

Foreign individuals or legal entities planning to organize an esports championship or tournament in Indonesia may be subject to additional requirements.

According to the applicable regulations, such events need to be organized in cooperation with PB ESI.

This is particularly relevant for international game developers and publishers planning to organize esports events in the Indonesian market.

7. Don’t Overlook Licensing and Compliance

Esports tournaments can be an effective way to build a gaming community, promote a game, and engage players.

However, the larger the event becomes, the more legal and administrative requirements organizers need to consider.

These may include:

• Prize pool classification
• Organizer status and eligibility
• PB ESI licensing and supervision
• Event recommendations
• Public gathering permits
• Venue requirements
• Participant and spectator safety
• Personal data protection

Ignoring these requirements can create problems for organizers, particularly when an event involves a large number of participants, spectators, sponsors, or substantial prize money.

Conclusion

Organizing an esports tournament in Indonesia involves more than choosing a game, creating a competition bracket, and preparing prizes.

Organizers should first determine the tournament format and scale, then ensure that the event complies with the applicable regulations.

For communities or game developers looking to organize their first competition, an online small-scale tournament with a prize pool below IDR 15 million may offer a relatively simple starting point. However, the applicable requirements should still be reviewed carefully, particularly if the event involves a physical audience or offline activities.

Larger tournaments and major offline esports events require more extensive licensing and administrative preparation.

By understanding the regulations from the beginning, organizers can run their tournaments more professionally while providing a safe, fair, and enjoyable competitive experience for players.

All legal information available on Klinik hukumonline.com has been prepared for educational purposes only and is general in nature (read the complete Disclaimer). In order to obtain legal advice specific to your case, please consult with Justika Partner Consultant.

When it comes to finding talent to build a strong esports team, sometimes esports clubs in Indonesia can find outstanding esports athletes from outside Indonesia. One way to do this is by studying the athlete’s match results and playing style. Thus, to recruit these outstanding athletes, Indonesian esports clubs need to pay attention to the legal provisions that apply in Indonesia. The provisions that need to be considered to hire these foreign athletes are as follows:

1. provisions of manpower law;
2. provisions of immigration law; and
3. provisions of the Sports Law and Regulation of Esports Federation of Indonesia (in Bahasa Indonesia, it is known as Peraturan Pengurus Besar Esports Indonesia/PB ESI).

Provisions of Manpower Law

As a foreign national (Warga Negara Asing/WNA) holding a visa with the intention of working in Indonesia, foreign esports athletes can be categorized as foreign workers (Tenaga Kerja Asing/TKA).[1] As such, as an employer who will employ TKA, esports clubs are required to have a foreign workers recruitment plan (Rencana Penggunaan TKA/RPTKA) that is validated by the Central Government.[2] In this case, foreign workers can be employed in Indonesia only in an employment relationship for a specified period as well as having competence in accordance with positions that will be occupied.[3]

Esports athletes are not included in the positions that can be occupied by foreign workers based on the Appendix of the Decree of the Minister of Manpower 228/2019. However, the Minister of Manpower can still grant permission to employ foreign workers for positions not regulated in the Appendix.[4]

As for obtaining RPTKA authorization, esports clubs must apply for RPTKA authorization to the Minister of Manpower or related officials online which contains at least:[5]

1. identity of the TKA Employer;
2. reasons for the recruitment of TKA;
3. position or ranking of TKA in the company’s organizational structure;
4. number of TKA;
5. period of TKA recruitment;
6. work location of TKA;
7. identity of TKA Understudy Workers; and
8. plan to absorb the Indonesian workforce every year

In applying for RPTKA authorization, esports clubs also need to attach supporting documents in the form of:[6]

1. application letter;
2. business identification number and/or business license of the TKA Employer;
3. deed and decree of establishment and/or amendment from the authorized institution;
4. proof of compulsory company manpower report (wajib lapor ketenagakerjaan) in the company;
5. draft employment agreement or other agreements;
6. chart of the company’s organizational structure;
7. statement letter for the appointment of TKA Understudy Workers;
8. statement letter to implement education and job training for Indonesian workers in accordance with the qualifications of the position occupied by TKA; and
9. statement letter to facilitate Indonesian language education and training to TKA.

Provisions of Immigration Law

Once an esports club has an RPTKA, the RPTKA can then be used as a recommendation for obtaining a visa and stay permit for foreign esports athletes.[7] Foreign esports athletes entering Indonesia must possess a valid (legitimate) visa, except for those who are exempted from visa requirements.[8] In this case, the form of visa granted to foreign athletes entering Indonesia for the purpose of working is a Limited Stay Visa (Visa Tinggal Terbatas/VITAS).[9] Once they have entered Indonesia, to stay and reside in Indonesia, the foreign athlete also needs a residence permit based on their visa.[10] In this context, the foreign athlete needs a Limited Stay Permit (Izin Tinggal Terbatas/ITAS).[11] Here, entry stamps for foreign nationals who hold Limited Stay Visas shall prevail as Limited Stay Permits.[12]

Limited Stay Permits for workers, including for foreign athletes, can be granted for a maximum period of 180 days, 1 year, or 2 years based on the period stated on their Limited Stay Visas.[13] The application process can be done by the athlete himself or by the esports club that will supervise him, and by attaching the following requirements:[14]

1. Nationality Passport that is valid and still prevails for at least 6 months;
2. proof of guarantee from Guarantor or Immigration Guarantee;
3. proof of having living expenses for him/herself and/or his/her family while in the Indonesian territory;
4. coloured passport photo; and
5. other documents to explain the aim/objective of Foreign Nationals’ arrival.

Provisions of Sports Law and Regulation of Esports Federation of Indonesia

As a performance sport[15] recognized by sports law, esports has its own sports branch, namely the Esports Federation of Indonesia (Peraturan Pengurus Besar Esports Indonesia/PB ESI). PB ESI has the task of managing, coaching, and developing esports, and has the authority to formulate and determine the management model, organization of coaching, and development of esports.[16]

Although foreign athletes or sportsmen are not specifically regulated in the Sports Law, in this case, PB ESI through the Regulation of Esports Federation of Indonesia regulates that several requirements must be met by foreign professional athletes competing in Indonesia, namely:[17]

1. Esports Team Recommendation Letter: Foreign professional athletes must possess a Letter of Recommendation from their esports club.
2. Indonesian Esports Card: Foreign professional athletes also need to possess an Indonesian Esports Card issued by PB ESI.
3. Visa and Work Permit: Foreign professional athletes are required to fulfill the licensing conditions required by the Government of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia to carry out professional activities in the territory of Indonesia.

In addition to these requirements for foreign esports athletes, esports clubs also need to ensure the fulfillment of the rights that can be received by professional athletes as mandated in the Regulation of Esports Federation of Indonesia as follows:[18]

1. Wages: Employment contracts should clearly state the monthly wage for both active and reserve athletes.
2. Increased Wages Based on Performance: For professional athletes with an employment contract term exceeding 1 year, there should be a clause that allows for discussion of an increase in wages based on the athlete’s performance every 4 to 6 months.
3. Insurance: Esports clubs must provide insurance to their professional athletes as a minimum of the following:

• Insurance program on National Social Security Agency for Employment (Badan Penyelenggaraan Jaminan Sosial Ketenagakerjaan/BPJS)
• Health insurance; and
• Travel insurance for both domestic and international travel.

4. Image Rights: The employment contract must state the amount of the athlete’s share of profits for the broadcast or publication of the athlete’s image rights.
5. Buyout and Transfer Clause: There needs to be a clause in the employment contract that regulates the athlete’s consent in the event of a buyout and transfer, including consent to termination of employment.

These are the answers we can provide, we hope you will find them useful.

Legal Basis:

1. Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower;
2. Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration;
3. Law Number 11 of 2022 on Sports;
4. Regulation of the Government in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation which has been enacted into law under Law Number 6 of 2023;
5. Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 on the Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration, as amended by Government Regulation Number 26 of 2016 on the Amendment to Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 on the Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration, as secondly amended by Government Regulation Number 51 of 2020 on the Second Amendment to Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 on the Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration, as thirdly amended by Government Regulation Number 48 of 2021 on the Third Amendment to Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 on the Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration, and lastly amended by Government Regulation Number 40 of 2023 on the Fourth Amendment to Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 on the Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 on Immigration;
6. Government Regulation Number 34 of 2021 on the Recruitment of Foreign Workers;
7. Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 22 of 2023 on Visas and Stay Permits as amended by Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 11 of 2024 on the Amendment to Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 22 of 2023 on Visas and Stay Permits;
8. Decree of the Minister of Manpower Number 228 of 2019 on Certain Positions Which May be Occupied by Foreign Workers;
9. Regulation of Esports Federation of Indonesia Number 034/PB-ESI/B/VI/2021 on the Implementation of Esports Activities in Indonesia.

Reference:

Esports Federation of Indonesia, which was accessed on Friday, 14^th of June 2024, at 16:22 Western Indonesian Time.

The video game industry has witnessed a significant rise in the utilization of loot box mechanics as a primary monetization strategy.  These mechanics have become a subject of intense debate, prompting discussions regarding fairness, ethical considerations, and even their compatibility with religious principles.  Prior to navigating these complexities, we must establish a foundational understanding of loot boxes and their core functionalities. At their core, loot boxes function as virtual containers within a video game that dispense randomized in-game rewards to players.

These rewards can be likened to a concealed treasure chest, where the contents remain unknown until the moment of acquisition. The spectrum of potential rewards encompasses purely cosmetic enhancements for a player’s character to strategically advantageous elements, such as powerful weapons or upgrades that demonstrably influence gameplay.

Two fundamental aspects define loot box mechanics:

• Randomized Rewards: The cornerstone of loot boxes lies in the element of chance. Players are entirely unaware of the specific reward they will receive upon opening a loot box, fostering a sense of anticipation that can be both stimulating and potentially frustrating.
• Acquisition Methods: While some video games incorporate loot boxes as earnable rewards through in-game progression, the more prevalent method involves purchasing them using either in-game currency (which can often be acquired with real-world money) or directly with real-world currency.

2. CONCERNS SURROUNDING LOOT BOX MECHANICS

Loot box mechanics have sparked concerns due to their perceived similarities with gambling activities and their potential to foster addictive behaviours, particularly among vulnerable populations. The randomized nature of loot box rewards, combined with the monetary investment required to obtain them, has drawn parallels to the mechanics of gambling, raising ethical questions about exploitation and potential harm. Furthermore, the unpredictable and compulsive pursuit of rare in-game items through loot box purchases mirrors the patterns of addictive gambling, prompting concerns about the normalization of such behaviours, especially in younger audiences. These two key issues have placed loot box mechanics under intense scrutiny from regulators, policymakers, and consumer advocacy groups worldwide.

a. Similarity to gambling

Loot box mechanics, while seemingly innocuous, have ignited significant concerns regarding their potential negative impacts on players, particularly those vulnerable to addictive behaviours. The inherent randomization and promise of valuable rewards embedded within loot boxes create a system that critics argue mirrors gambling mechanics. Players invest real-world money to participate in a randomized process where the rewards hold varying values. This system creates a situation akin to winning or losing, depending on whether they acquire a desirable or undesirable item.

The fundamental similarity lies in the element of chance combined with a monetary investment for a randomized outcome with variable rewards. This association with gambling raises significant ethical questions, especially in jurisdictions where gambling is prohibited due to its potential to cause social and financial harm.

Several high-profile cases have emerged where video games featuring loot box mechanics have been challenged in court.  For instance, the case of an Austrian Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO) player who successfully sued developer Valve to recover EUR 14,096.58 (around USD 15,3k) spent on in-game weapon cases serves as a prime illustration of the ongoing legal debate surrounding loot boxes and their potential classification as a form of gambling.[1]

In that case, the court in Austria ruled that Valve, the developer of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO), must refund the aforementioned amount to a player who spent that amount on in-game weapon cases. The court found that these weapon cases constitute loot boxes and thus violate Austria’s gambling laws.  Weapon cases are a type of loot box that contain weapon skins, gloves, and knives.

Players can acquire them through random drops while playing the game, through trading with other players, or by purchasing them on various online marketplaces. The crux of the lawsuit centered around the random nature of the rewards in weapon cases. The plaintiff argued that since the contents of each case are determined by chance, opening them essentially constitutes gambling. The Austrian court agreed with this argument and ultimately ruled that Valve should reimburse the plaintiff for their in-game purchases. This case is significant because it highlights the growing legal scrutiny surrounding loot boxes and their potential classification as a form of gambling.

b. Potential for Addictive Behaviours

The unpredictable nature of loot box rewards raises significant concerns about the potential for players, particularly younger audiences, to develop problematic addictive behaviours akin to gambling addiction. Gaming Disorder (GD) was officially included in the ICD-11 as a group of disorders due to addictive behaviours.[1]  The cardinal symptoms of GD are impaired control over gaming behaviour, increased priority given to the behaviour, and its persistence or escalation despite negative consequences to the patient.[2]

There is a strong resemblance between obtaining rare items in loot boxes and taking a gamble. As players randomly obtain items from loot boxes, they become compelled to purchase more loot boxes in the expectation that they will eventually obtain a desired item, which is known as the variable ratio reinforcement schedule, a key factor in fostering addictive behaviours.[3]  Loot boxes are commonly purchased by many young people, and the less experience they have with such mechanism, the more challenging it can be for them to manage their impulsivity.[4]

3. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO REGULATION IN SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS

The concerns surrounding loot box mechanics have spurred governments around the world to take action. This section will delve into the types of approaches taken by different countries in addressing loot boxes. Some have classified loot boxes as a form of gambling, others have mandated age restrictions and established transparency requirements through disclosure practices. Some have also addressed loot boxes indirectly through advertising regulations. Notably, these regulatory approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and jurisdictions that require probability disclosure could also have age restrictions on games with loot boxes, and so on.

a. Considered Gambling (Belgium and Austria)

Loot boxes have faced particularly strict regulations in Belgium and Austria, where they have been classified as a form of gambling. In Belgium, the Gaming Commission released a report in 2018 dedicated to loot boxes.[5]  Following an examination of loot boxes in four video games, the Commission concluded that three of them constituted games of chance subject to the country’s Gambling Act.

These games fulfilled the criteria of a game of chance, defined as involving a combination of being a game, involving a wager, involving chance, and resulting in a gain or loss.[1]  Since gambling activities in Belgium are restricted with exceptions outlined in the Gambling Act, the Commission deemed these loot boxes to be in violation.  The report also emphasized that even free loot boxes could be problematic if they incentivize players towards purchasing paid loot boxes.

To comply with the Gambling Act, the Commission mandated the removal of paid loot boxes from the offending video games.  Failure to comply could result in significant penalties for operators, including prison sentences of up to five years and hefty fines reaching EUR 800,000 for a first offense.  These penalties could be doubled for violations involving minors.  The Commission further clarified that prosecutions would primarily target game operators, with the possibility of extending them to those involved in running the illegal games.

Austria has also taken a firm stance against loot boxes.  In February 2023, a landmark court case saw an Austrian player successfully sue Sony for a refund on the money spent acquiring loot boxes in the FIFA video game series.[2]  The Hermagor District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, determining that the “Ultimate Team Player Packs” constituted illegal gambling.  This decision hinged on three key factors:

• Real-World Money: Players used real money to purchase the loot boxes.
• Randomized Content: The contents of the loot boxes were not predetermined.
• Financial Benefit: The acquired loot box items held a “financial benefit” because they could be traded between players on a secondary market, falling under the purview of Austrian gambling law.

While Sony had the right to appeal the judgment, they opted not to do so, solidifying the court’s decision.  This case was followed by another in August 2023, where both Electronic Arts and Sony were ordered to refund EUR 10,800 to a player after losing a separate loot box case in Austria. The actions taken by Belgium and Austria serve as a strong precedent for how loot boxes can be regulated as a form of gambling, with all the regulations that come with it.

b. Probability Disclosure (China and South Korea)

In contrast to countries that classify loot boxes as gambling, China and South Korea have adopted a different regulatory approach, focusing on probability disclosure. China was the pioneer in this area, implementing regulations in December 2016 that came into effect in May 2017.[1]  These regulations, which are still used in practice despite its abolishment, mandated that game developers disclose the probability of acquiring specific rewards through loot boxes.  These disclosures must encompass:

• The name and functionality of each item obtainable through loot boxes.
• The quantity and probability of obtaining each item.
• A prominent display of this information on the game’s official website or within the random selection interface itself.
• Transparency and accuracy in the published probability information.
• Retention of user participation data in random selection events for a minimum of 90 days to facilitate potential inquiries by relevant authorities.

Loot boxes that fail to comply with these regulations risk being deemed violations or even classified as gambling games, potentially leading to penalties and removal from online platforms.

Following China’s lead, South Korea also implemented its own loot box regulations in March 2023.[2]  Effective March 2024, these amendments require developers to disclose the probabilities of obtaining individual loot box items, as opposed to just categories of items.  This ensures a more granular level of transparency for players.  Technical requirements for displaying this information, along with other game product details like age ratings, are outlined in the corresponding presidential decree.

South Korea’s regulatory framework also incorporates an industry self-regulatory body, the Game Self-Governance Organization of Korea (GSOK).  Since February 2017, the GSOK has been actively advocating for and enforcing probability disclosures among game developers. The amended Act further empowers the relevant Minister to directly mandate companies to make disclosures or rectify misleading information.  Non-compliance with these regulations can result in penalties for failing to disclose loot box probabilities or disregarding corrective orders issued by the Minister.

By focusing on probability disclosure, China and South Korea aim to empower players with greater knowledge about loot box mechanics, effectively asking the players to acknowledge the risks and possibilities of the randomized reward system.

c. Minimum Age Rating (Germany and Australia)

Another approach to regulating loot boxes focuses on establishing minimum age ratings for games that incorporate them.  Germany has implemented regulations that utilize this strategy. In April 2021, amendments were made to the German Protection of Young Persons Act (JuSchG). These amendments came into effect in January 2023 and mandated the German age rating organization, the USK (Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle), to consider the presence of “gambling-like mechanisms” when assigning age ratings to video games.[3]

Loot boxes fall under the purview of these “gambling-like mechanisms.”  In response, the USK also revised its internal policies in January 2023 to reflect this change.  As a result, games containing loot boxes now receive an age rating warning that translates to “In-Game Purchases + Random Items.”  This serves as a clear indicator to parents and guardians about the presence of loot box mechanics within the game.

Australia has taken a stricter stance on loot boxes through its amended Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games 2023, which took effect in September 2024.  These guidelines mandate that video games featuring loot boxes must be classified at a minimum of M (not recommended for persons under 15 years of age).[1]  Furthermore, games that incorporate simulated gambling mechanics must be classified R 18+ (legally restricted to adults only).

The guidelines define “loot box” as a feature within a computer game where players can acquire digital containers containing randomized virtual items through some form of payment. Although this definition is somewhat limitative, it is a step in the right direction in regulation.  This age-rating approach in Germany and Australia aims to shield younger audiences from potential risks associated with loot boxes, particularly those related to addictive behaviours and the potential for irresponsible spending.

By implementing these minimum age ratings, these countries ensure that parents and guardians are informed about the presence of loot boxes before allowing younger players to access such games. This will open avenues for their involvement in the decision-making process regarding the suitability of the game content for their children. Not only that, these age ratings are intended to prevent misuse of in-game transactions that tend to occur in the younger audience.

d. Advertising Regulations (Indonesia and United Kingdom)

While some countries take a hard line on loot boxes themselves, others like Indonesia and the United Kingdom (UK) have taken a different approach by focusing on regulating the way loot boxes are advertised to consumers. Rather than directly regulating the games or loot box mechanics, these jurisdictions address loot boxes within the broader scope of consumer protection laws and advertising regulations.  This strategy aims to ensure transparency in the marketing and/or promotion of loot boxes while still allowing their inclusion in games. By regulating the advertising aspect, Indonesia and the UK seek to empower buyers with accurate information which will enable them to make fully-informed decisions when choosing to purchase loot boxes.

Indonesia’s Consumer Protection Law (Law No.8 of 1999) prohibits promoting products that “contain uncertain promises.”[1] Loot boxes, which are intangible objects utilized by consumers, are considered “goods” under  the Consumer Protection Law and as such are subject to its provisions.[2] The law prohibits business actors from offering, promoting, or advertising goods and/or services incorrectly, or as if offering something that contains uncertain promises.[3] Consequently, loot boxes may only be advertised as potentially containing certain items, but cannot be advertised as directly selling the contents themselves, as their acquisition is not guaranteed upon purchase of the loot box.

The law does not allow companies to promote loot boxes as offering a guaranteed outcome or mislead players about the random nature of the rewards. However, offering the loot box itself as a product as opposed to the contents of the loot box can still be done. Indonesia’s advertising regulations for loot boxes align with the UK’s approach overseen by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP).

In September 2021, the CAP issued specific guidance on advertising in-game purchases, which includes loot boxes.[4]  These guidelines aim to prevent misleading advertising practices.  For instance, companies are prohibited from creating the impression that players have a much higher chance of acquiring rare items than is actually the case.  This includes practices like highlighting “near misses” where players seem to have narrowly missed obtaining a valuable item.  Additionally, the CAP discourages companies from falsely portraying limited-time offers for loot boxes, particularly if they intend to re-introduce those same offers later.  These regulations ensure that consumers are presented with accurate information about loot box mechanics and the associated element of chance.

4. CONCERNS REGARDING LOOT BOX MECHANICS IN ISLAMIC/SHARIA LAW

From the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence, the permissibility of loot box mechanics is a complex issue that requires a nuanced examination. This section delves into the Islamic legal concepts and principles that shape the discourse surrounding loot boxes. It analyses the concept of “Maisir” (gambling) and how loot boxes potentially align with the Quranic prohibitions on such activities. Additionally, it explores the notion of “Gharar” (excessive uncertainty) and its implications for the uncertain nature of loot box rewards. By unpacking these foundational concepts, this section aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Islamic legal viewpoints on loot boxes and their potential classification as impermissible practices.

a. On Gambling (Maisir)

The permissibility of loot boxes under Islamic law (Sharia) remains an open question.  While there is no express conclusion as of yet, many Islamic scholars view loot boxes with a critical lens due to their inherent similarities to gambling, a practice explicitly prohibited in the Quran. The term “Maisir” in Islamic law refers to speculation or gambling.

This prohibition stems from the Quran’s edict that it brings more harm than good:

“They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: ‘In them both lies grave sin, though some benefit, to mankind. But their sin is more grave than their benefit.’”[1]

Sharia, however, recognizes the distinction between calculated business risks and pure gambling. The former is considered an acceptable part of commercial activities, while the latter is strictly forbidden.

The Quran serves as the foundational source of Islamic law, and its pronouncements are considered authoritative and indisputable.  One specific verse explicitly prohibits gambling:

“O you who believe! Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and (divination by) arrows are all evil of Satan’s handiwork. Eschew such (evil), that you may prosper.”[2]

This verse emphasizes the inherently detrimental nature of gambling and its association with negative consequences.

Applying these Islamic principles to video games, the inclusion of loot boxes raises ethical concerns.  Since loot boxes involve spending real money on a random chance of acquiring desirable in-game items as elaborated widely above, they share characteristics with gambling.  This element of chance and the potential for financial loss resonate with the Quranic prohibition on Maisir. Consequently, it could be argued that loot boxes could be classified as haram (forbidden) under Islamic law. While the Quran’s stance on gambling is clear, its application to the modern phenomenon of loot boxes is a complex issue.

There is no single, universally accepted interpretation among Islamic scholars.  Some may differentiate between loot box systems based on the level of chance involved and the potential for players to eventually acquire all items without relying solely on random purchases. The evolving nature of technology necessitates ongoing discussions within Islamic jurisprudence to address these contemporary situations. The uncertainty surrounding the permissibility of loot boxes under Islamic law presents a challenge for Muslim players and developers.  Understanding these religious perspectives can inform the design and consumption of video games within Islamic communities.

b. On Excessive Uncertainty (Gharar)

The concept of “Gharar,” literally meaning “risk” in Islamic law, plays a central role in the debate surrounding loot boxes. Gharar refers to situations where the characteristics, quantity, or even the very existence of what is being exchanged are unknown or highly uncertain. [1] This uncertainty can lead to unfair outcomes and a lack of informed consent, which consequently means transactions containing Gharar are forbidden.[2] By introducing elements of ambiguity, loot boxes challenge the principles of fairness and transparency in transactions emphasized in Islamic law.

Classic examples of Gharar from the Hadith (authoritative saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) include the prohibition of selling “fish in the water or birds in the sky” before they are caught, the amount or quality of which cannot be ascertained at the time of sale.[3] Loot boxes in video games introduce significant ambiguity and risk, as players spend money without knowing if they will receive a specific desired item. This scenario creates uncertainty, as the contents of loot boxes can vary widely in value; creating a disparity similar to the risks highlighted in traditional examples of Gharar.

Moreover, Gharar extends to situations where the outcome depends heavily on chance, with an unequal distribution of risk.[4] Similarly, loot boxes involve an element of speculation, as players spend money on the chance of acquiring a desirable item, but the risk of receiving something unwanted is substantial. This lack of control and the potential for wasted expenditure resonate with the prohibition of Gharar.

The lack of transparency in loot box mechanics further exacerbates the issue. Players often do not know the odds of obtaining specific items, and the true value of the virtual items is subjective and unclear. This opacity aligns with the principles of Gharar, as it involves a lack of information or misunderstanding between contracting parties. The high level of uncertainty in what a player is purchasing—spending money without knowing if they will receive a valuable item or something worthless—falls under the excessive uncertainty described by Gharar. This excessive uncertainty can lead to unfair outcomes and exploitation, where players may spend significant amounts of money without receiving commensurate value.

As things stand, it seems much more likely that loot boxes would be prohibited based on Gharar. Several factors contribute to this higher likelihood: the potential for addictive spending and financial loss on virtual items of unknown value raises concerns about exploitation, a core principle antithetical to Islamic commerce. Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding loot box mechanics and item odds furthers the Gharar argument. Ultimately, the inherent uncertainty associated with loot boxes aligns with the classic examples of Gharar outlined in the Hadith, where one does not know what one is purchasing, resulting in excessive uncertainty.

5. CONCLUSION

The rise of loot box mechanics in video games has prompted a diverse array of regulatory responses across jurisdictions. Each lawmaker respectively addresses loot boxes through methods they deem most effective. Different approaches such as classifying loot boxes as a form of gambling, mandating the disclosure of loot box probabilities, implementing minimum age ratings for games featuring loot boxes, and regulating how loot boxes can be marketed have been implemented by different jurisdictions.

These varied approaches highlight the multifaceted challenges posed by loot box mechanics and the differing philosophical underpinnings guiding each jurisdiction’s response to this phenomenon. From an Islamic law perspective, loot boxes face scrutiny under the concepts of Maisir (gambling) and Gharar (excessive uncertainty).

The Quran explicitly prohibits gambling, and many scholars view loot boxes as potentially aligning with this prohibition due to their reliance on chance and monetary expenditure for randomized rewards. The principle of Gharar emphasizes transparency and fairness in transactions, which loot box mechanics may violate through their lack of clarity and uneven distribution of rewards. While no universal consensus exists, Islamic jurisprudence seems to lean towards prohibiting loot boxes based on their exploitative potential and intrinsic uncertainty antithetical to Islamic commercial ethics.

[1] Book 31, Hadith 1304,  Muwatta Malik

[2] Vol. 3, Book 12, Hadith 2195, Sunan Ibn Majah

[3] Vol. 3, Book 12, Hadith 1230,  Jami` at-Tirmidhi

[4] Book 11, Hadith 2854, Mishkat al-Masabih

[1] Quran 2:219

[2] Quran 5:90

[1] Article 9(1)(k), Law No.8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection

[2] Article (1) (4), Ibid

[3] Article (9)(1), Ibid

[4] Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), ‘Guidance on Advertising In-Game Purchases’ (20 September 2021) <https://www.asa.org.uk/resource/guidance-on-advertising-in-game-purchases.html> accessed 15 May 2024

[1]Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games 2023, p.15

[1] 2016 Ministry of Culture Notice on Regulating Online Game Operations and Strengthening Interim and Post-event Supervision Work

[2] 게임산업진흥에 관한 법률 [Games Industry Promotion Act] (as enacted as Law No. 7941 on 28 April 2006, effective 29 October 2006) and as later amended

[3] § 10b(3),German Protection of Young Persons Act (JuSchG)

[1] Article 2 (1), Federal Act of 7 May 1999 regarding games of chance, wagers and protection of the players

[2] Xiao, Leon Y. 2023. Loot Box State of Play 2023: Law, Regulation, Policy, and Enforcement Around the World, p. 15

[1] World Health Organization. Inclusion of “gaming disorder” in ICD‐11. 2018, https://www.who.int/news/item/14-09-2018-inclusion-of-gaming-disorder-in-icd-11, accessed 10 May 2024

[2] World Health Organization. 6C51 in ICD‐11. 2018, https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#1448597234, accessed 10 May 2024

[3] Ferster CB, Skinner BF. Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton‐Century‐Crofts; 1957. p. vii 744–vii

[4] Inaguma T, Misumi S, Funatogawa T, Nemoto T, Harima H, Mizuno M. Does the loot box open the door to addiction? A case report of gaming disorder with high charges for loot box purchases. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Rep. 2024;3:e167. https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.167

[5] Belgische Kansspelcommissie (Belgian Gaming Commission), ‘Onderzoeksrapport loot boxen’ https://web.archive.org/web/20200414184710/https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-final-publicatie.pdf, accessed 12 May 2024

[1] Austria Press Agency. Press Release, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20231218_OTS0033/counter-strike-lootboxen-erstmalig-fuer-illegal-erklaert-valve-corporation-verliert-spektakulaeren-gerichtsprozess, accessed 12 May 2024

Additionally, eDoping’s effect can be felt beyond esports, infiltrating traditional sports like chess. The rise of online chess has raised concerns about possible technological manipulation, with accusations suggesting players are using chess engines to analyse positions on the fly, gaining an advantage surpassing even the capabilities of the world’s best chess grandmasters.[2] The application of eDoping in chess would also extend to cases where players receive outside communication through technological means during live games to determine the best move.[3]

Traditionally, doping has been defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) Code as “the occurrence of one or more anti-doping rule violations.”[4] These violations encompass a range of prohibited substances and methods aimed at artificially enhancing an athlete’s physical performance. Examples include anabolic steroids, blood manipulation techniques, and specific masking agents.[5] However, the emergence of eDoping necessitates a broader understanding of this concept. Unlike its physical counterpart, eDoping transcends the manipulation of the athlete’s body and ventures into the digital realm. It involves the utilization of technological tools to enhance performance, create an uneven playing field, and gain a competitive advantage.

In Indonesia, WADA is represented by the Indonesia Anti-Doping Organization (“IADO”). IADO was established under the Indonesian Ministry of Youth and Sports as a national level anti-Doping task force that is independent and affiliated with WADA and regional anti-Doping agencies.[6] The Indonesian Sports Law also refers to IADO as the body that is authorized to regulate anti-doping in Indonesia.[7]

Regarding its content, the specific regulation establishing IADO specifically mentions that it should adhere to the WADA Code in performing its function.[8] Subsequently, IADO’s definition of doping is identical to the WADA Code, which is that doping is the use of prohibited substances and/or methods to enhance sports performance as well as any other violation of anti-doping regulations.[9] A similar definition of doping is used in the Indonesian Sports Law.[10]

When it comes to esports specifically, the Esports Federation of Indonesia’s (“PB ESI”) Regulations take precedence, as they are the detailed rules established by Indonesia’s government-recognized governing body for esports. PB ESI is the parent organization of esports as a competitive sport in Indonesia, which the Indonesian Sports Law grants authority to enact its administrative-level policy for the field of esports, known as PB ESI Regulations.[11]

In this case, the PB ESI Regulations specifies that the use of prohibited substances or methods to gain an undeserved competitive edge qualifies as doping.[12] PB ESI has even highlighted eDoping specifically, pointing it out as an outstanding issue in the esports community.[13] Based on this, eDoping can be understood as “the use of technological methods to enhance performance and gain an underserved advantage” under the current regulations in Indonesia.

While the specific methods and technologies employed in eDoping vary across esports and traditional sports utilizing technology, the underlying principle remains the same: achieving an advantage through external means (such as exploiting algorithms, software, and technological tools) to strengthen an athlete and result in unequal starting state compared to opponents. It’s essential to distinguish that doping, in this context, focuses on enhancing one’s own performance rather than making others perform worse (which would instead fall under sabotage or unsportsmanlike conduct).

However, not all use of technological advancements in esports fall under the umbrella of eDoping. Legitimate training tools, performance analysis software, and even certain hardware upgrades do not inherently violate fair play principles. The crucial factor in differentiation lies in the intent and impact, as technologies should not provide an inherent advantage that undermines the fundamental principles of fair competition.

2. CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS

The recent “Netflix.exe” incident in the Indonesian Valorant community sent shockwaves through the Indonesian esports scene. While the investigation remains ongoing, the allegations paint a worrying picture. During a Valorant Champions Tour qualifier, an Indonesian player named Mica was accused of using a cheat software disguised as a program named “Netflix.exe.”[14] Evidence shared by caster Bredel, included a folder named Fantech Audio found on Mica’s computer, containing the suspicious “Netflix.exe” file.

Further investigations unearthed a text file with instructions on disabling Riot Games’ Vanguard anti-cheat and activating aim assist, a feature granting significant targeting advantages. The Indonesian Esports Federation has not addressed this incident in specific but is unequivocal in its opposed stance to the use of such programs. This incident exemplifies the deceptive nature of eDoping, where seemingly harmless names mask sophisticated cheating tools, making detection even more challenging.

Another case of eDoping in the Indonesian esports scene involved player “MSCZEINFYSARC” from the semi-pro team MSC Arcane during the DGWIB tournament in 2022.[15] The player faced accusations of resorting to cheats, prompting a thorough investigation that uncovered conclusive evidence. As a consequence of these findings, the entire team faced disqualification from the tournament, while “MSCZEINFYSARC” bore the weight of a permanent ban from all official PUBG Mobile Indonesia tournaments. This incident serves as an example of the disciplinary measures that can be taken once eDoping has been identified.

These cases ignited discussions surrounding the legal ramifications of eDoping. However, navigating this legal terrain proves complex due to the absence of specific anti-eDoping legislation. While the anti-doping regulations under the Sports Law exist, their focus on traditional physical sports leaves the nuances of the digital realm largely unaddressed. Additionally, the rapid growth of esports means legal frameworks haven’t fully matured to encompass its intricacies. Here, the PB ESI Regulations offer a crucial piece of the puzzle, outlining two distinct categories of violations, which are “in-game” and “out-of-game” violations.[16]

In-game violations occur directly within the competitive sphere and encompass actions that compromise fair play. This includes utilizing unauthorized software like “Netflix.exe” or “aimbots” that grant unfair advantages, employing “jockeys” who compete on behalf of another player, and breaching the established rules of sanctioned Esports Leagues, Tournaments, and multi-sports events. Out-of-game violations extend beyond the immediate gameplay and encompass a broader range of actions that impact the integrity of the esports ecosystem. This includes misusing the PBESI name through impersonation or misrepresentation, breaches committed by professional teams such as violating employment contracts, improper player transfers, and failing to fulfill obligations to PBESI. We can see here that eDoping would fall squarely in the category of in-game violations.

When professional athletes engage in such in-game violations, the PB ESI Regulations outline a range of potential sanctions, including[17]:

1. Mild reprimand: For minor offenses, a verbal or written warning may be issued.
2. Severe reprimand: More serious infractions can result in a stronger formal reprimand.
3. Suspension/temporary suspension of membership: Depending on the severity, temporary suspension from competing or participating in PBESI activities can be imposed.
4. Revocation of Professional Esports Athlete status: In egregious cases, the athlete’s professional status within the organization may be revoked.
5. Dismissal from PBESI membership: The most severe consequence involves complete expulsion from the Esports Federation.
6. Fine: Additionally, financial penalties may be levied as part of the disciplinary measures.

Analyzing the “Netflix.exe” and “MSCZEINFYSARC” cases through the lens of the PB ESI Regulations reveals clear violations in both instances. Even though the PB ESI Regulations don’t explicitly mention “eDoping,” the use of unauthorized software like “Netflix.exe” would likely fall under the category of “utilizing unauthorized software” and could incur any of the aforementioned sanctions. This is further supported by the existence of instructions found on Mica’s computer detailing how to disable Riot Games’ Vanguard anti-cheat and activate aim assist.[18] The same is true for the “MSCZEINFYSARC” case, as the evidence gathered during the investigation in this PUBG Mobile tournament was damning. The player, “MSCZEINFYSARC,” demonstrably used unauthorized cheat software, a clear violation of “utilizing unauthorized software.”

While both the “Netflix.exe” and “MSCZEINFYSARC” cases demonstrate clear violations of fair play principles, since both of these players were not registered as professional esports athletes with the Esports Federation of Indonesia, it cannot directly sanction them under the PB ESI Regulations. However, existing practice within the PB ESI shows that there are still steps that can be taken.

Firstly, the PB ESI has demonstrably imposed bans on players caught cheating, such players would be blacklisted from competing at official PB ESI-recognized events. Other than that, the PB ESI also often coordinates with game publishers, tournament organizers, clubs, and other members of the community to verify the identity of individuals being called up to represent Indonesia in multi-sports events (SEA Games, Asian Games, etc), such that individuals who have been involved in eDoping cases are guaranteed never to participate in such events.

While the current landscape might see eDoping primarily impacting competition through rule violations, the potential for escalation into positive law violations exists under specific circumstances. As an example, if the “Netflix.exe” software in the above case manipulates game data, systems, or utilizes unauthorized access methods, it could potentially fall under the Electronic Information and Transactions Act (Law No. 11 of 2008).

This Act criminalizes acts that alter, damage, or destroy computer systems or data, or interfere with their functioning. Another example would be if the eDoping software involves collection of personal data belonging to other players or spectators, which could violate Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection. Depending on the nature and extent of the data breach, this could lead to significant legal repercussions.

3. THE IMPACT OF EDOPING

The burgeoning phenomenon of eDoping in competitive gaming and traditional sports presents multifaceted challenge with far-reaching consequences. To ensure the integrity and ethical foundation of these domains, a thorough investigation of its impact on athletes, fair competition, and the broader sports ecosystem is essential. Firstly, eDoping introduces a host of ethical and moral dilemmas for athletes involved in competitive gaming and traditional sports.

The use of deceptive software, as exemplified by the “Netflix.exe” incident places a dark shadow on the pursuit of excellence. Athletes implicated in eDoping cases face not only potential bans but also significant damage to their reputations and integrity. This threatens the very essence of sportsmanship and fair play, as competitors resort to surreptitious means to gain an advantage, undermining the principles that form the foundation of athletic endeavours.

Secondly, the competitive landscape undergoes a profound shift with the advent of eDoping. As seen in the case of “MSCZEINFYSARC” from MSC Arcane, teams implicated in eDoping incidents face severe consequences, such as disqualification from tournaments and permanent bans for players. This not only disrupts the equilibrium of competitive gaming but also raises concerns about the legitimacy of victories and the fairness of the playing field. Such incidents erode the trust and credibility within the esports community and traditional sports, posing challenges to the establishment of a level and equitable competitive environment.

Thirdly, eDoping transcends the digital realm, challenging the very integrity of sports. The use of cheat software and deceptive tactics undermines the trust placed in athletes and the sanctity of competitive endeavours. Beyond individual cases, the pervasive threat of eDoping casts a shadow on the entire sports ecosystem, prompting questions about the efficacy of anti-doping measures and the need for more stringent regulations. Maintaining the integrity of sports becomes an uphill battle as eDoping threatens the spirit of fair play, sportsmanship, and the principles that define the noble pursuit of athletic excellence.

The widespread threat of eDoping demands immediate action. There needs to be heightened vigilance from governing bodies, esports organizations, and even traditional sports institutions to protect athletes from temptation and maintain fair competition. Robust regulatory frameworks must be established to safeguard esports’ integrity and uphold the core values of sportsmanship, both online and off. Only through continuous adaptation and collective commitment can we effectively combat eDoping’s evolving threats and ensure a level playing field for all participants.

4. CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING EDOPING

Embarking on a detailed exploration of the challenges posed by eDoping, this section delves into three key aspects: detection, evidence collection, and the crucial issue of awareness. The practice of eDoping presents a unique set of hurdles for effective detection, as it often leaves intangible footprints, contrasting with the more traceable nature of physical doping. The complexities deepen when considering evidence collection, where specialized expertise and collaboration with tech companies and cybersecurity professionals are essential, especially in an era dominated by online competitions. Finally, a notable challenge lies in the pervasive lack of awareness surrounding eDoping within esports and traditional sports communities, highlighting the need for proactive education among viewers, athletes, tournament organizers, and game publishers.

Unlike traditional doping, eDoping operates predominantly in the digital realm, leaving behind intangible footprints that pose a significant challenge for detection. In contrast to physical substances that leave traces, identifying modified codes, hidden programs, or other types of software becomes inherently challenging, especially when there are constantly new methods of eDoping being innovated. This difficulty is exacerbated when eDoping methods utilize sophisticated techniques to disguise their presence, making it imperative to develop advanced and adaptive detection mechanisms that can keep pace with evolving methods.

The intricacies of collecting and analysing digital evidence add another layer of complexity to combating eDoping. Specialized expertise and resources are crucial for tasks such as accessing encrypted files, tracing online activities, and differentiating between legitimate software and malicious tools. Collaboration with tech companies and cybersecurity professionals becomes essential to navigate the evolving landscape of digital competition, especially in an era where online tournaments and competitions dominate. This multifaceted collaboration is indispensable to ensuring a robust and comprehensive approach to evidence collection against the elusive nature of eDoping.

Another fundamental challenge in addressing eDoping lies in the pervasive lack of awareness within the esports and traditional sports communities. Awareness around eDoping needs a significant boost among viewers, athletes, tournament organizers, referee, administrator and/or game publishers. The biggest challenge lies not just in recognizing violations, but in understanding the specific nature of “eDoping.” Many perceive it as a general rule break, unaware of its distinct category and the sophisticated methods it encompasses. This lack of awareness hinders proactive identification and effective prevention measures. Educating stakeholders about the deceptive nature of seemingly harmless programs, as highlighted in the “Netflix.exe” incident, is paramount for fostering a collective commitment to maintaining the integrity of competitive gaming.

5. NECESSARY ACTIONS TO COMBAT EDOPING

As technology continues its rapid evolution, anti-doping regulations must remain dynamic and adaptable to address emerging eDoping methods. The proactive definition of new eDoping techniques, the establishment of clear detection protocols, and the delineation of appropriate disciplinary measures are critical components of a robust defence against the clandestine practices of eDoping. Continuous revisions and updates to these regulations are essential, as a stagnant framework leaves vulnerabilities that can be exploited. These regulatory advancements aim to specifically address the challenges associated with detection and evidence collection, ensuring that the evolving tactics of eDoping are met with an equally dynamic and effective response.

Raising awareness emerges as a cornerstone in the battle against eDoping, encompassing athletes, officials, and the broader public. Educational programs and other efforts play a pivotal role in equipping athletes with the knowledge needed to identify and resist the temptations of eDoping. Simultaneously, training for officials becomes essential, enabling them to recognize suspicious activities and effectively employ detection tools.

Public awareness fosters a culture of fair play, instilling a sense of responsibility among all stakeholders. Additionally, heightened public awareness encourages the reporting of potential eDoping cases, creating a collective commitment to maintaining the integrity of competitive sports. This measure strategically addresses the pervasive lack of awareness within the esports and traditional sports communities, forming a proactive defence against the deceptive tactics employed by those seeking to compromise fair play.

6. CONCLUSION

The emergence of eDoping as a novel form of cheating poses complex challenges that necessitate collaborative efforts from all stakeholders to comprehensively address. As technology rapidly evolves, the regulations must remain equally dynamic, coupled with extensive programs to foster awareness. Through continuously updated frameworks, proactive training, and collective vigilance, the sanctity of competitive gaming and sports can be preserved despite the threats introduced by clandestine eDoping practices. Such a collaborative effort involving all stakeholders is required to ensure the spirit of competition is protected from eDoping.

This article is part of the collaboration between ELN and K-Case Lawyer announced on 15 November 2023.

Pada edisi kali ini, penulisan difokuskan pada tiga topik utama yaitu mengenai perbedaan peranan, fungsi dan latar belakang hukum antar komite dan asosiasi, ketentuan poaching, serta ketentuan mengenai liga dan turnamen.

Pemahaman mengenai fungsi dan peranan antar komite dan asosiasi esports Indonesia sangat penting demi meluruskan persepsi tumpang tindih peranan yang selama ini hidup dalam ekosistem esports. Topik mengenai poaching dibahas demi menjawab pertanyaan masyarakat mengenai definisi dan batasannya. Kemudian pembahasan mengenai liga dan turnamen diangkat sehubungan dengan penyelenggaraan Pekan Olahraga Nasional (PON) esports yang sudah dekat.

This review presents the latest developments in legislation, regulation, and future imperative decisions affecting Indonesia’s esports ecosystem. Good reference to know the business model of an esports club as well.