Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
The app store listing and an in-app storefront for the mobile game F1 clash, seen in August 2024, was still appearing in May 2025:
a. The app store listing featured text which stated, “Offers In-App Purchases”. Further down the listing, text described gameplay and was accompanied by a “more” button, which when clicked, expanded the page to display additional information. Within that information, text stated, “PLEASE NOTE! […] some in-game items can also be purchased for real money. F1 Clash includes loot boxes that drop the available items in randomised order”.
b. The in-game storefront was for a “Golden Spin” and featured a circle that contained 12 equally spaced icons that represented a different prize. A car, which represented a spinner, was in the middle. Above the imagery, a banner displayed the game’s name, a question mark and text that stated, “Up to x10 better prizes”. Below the wheel, further text stated, “TRY NOW FOR UP TO X10 BETTER PRIZES” above a link which stated, “USD1.99”.
Issue
The complainant, an academic researcher in game regulation, challenged whether:
- ad (a) was misleading because material information about the presence of random-item purchasing (loot boxes) was not sufficiently clear;
- ad (b) misleadingly implied consumers had an equal chance of winning each prize; and
- the claim “TRY NOW FOR UP TO X10 BETTER PRIZES” in ad (b) was misleading because it was not clear what the claim related to.
Response
1. Hutch Games Ltd t/a F1 Clash said the way information was displayed on app listings within the App Store was controlled by the App Store itself, and therefore they had no control over the placement or visibility of system-generated labels such as “In-App Purchases”. They were therefore required to disclose the presence of random item purchasing in the expanded product description. They said the disclosure appeared in the first paragraph, directly after the “In-App Purchases” label and before any legal or technical content. They believed consumers were familiar with using a “more” button to access the full description, and that the relevant information was visible with minimal scrolling.
They also explained that the condensed section of the listing was limited to 25 words and reserved for core product messaging. They said that the inclusion of the disclosure in that space would have required omitting key product details.
They believed that, within the App Store’s limitations, the presence of in-game and random-item purchases had been clearly communicated. In addition, they said their ads made the presence of random item purchasing clear, so consumers would have likely been aware that the app featured loot boxes before accessing the App Store.
They believed they were in the minority of developers who ensured their game apps displayed information related to the presence of loot boxes.
2. F1 Clash said that information about the probability of winning each prize was accessed via a question mark symbol, which they explained was a standard symbol in mobile app games used to provide additional information. They believed consumers would have been familiar with other similar symbols that were used in the same way, and provided examples.
They said that the question mark symbol was used consistently throughout the app. Consumers, therefore, would be familiar with its use to signify additional information was available, including probabilities of winning. They believed consumers would not expect spinner segment sizes to reflect the chances of winning and would understand that probabilities were shown via the symbol instead.
They said they took part in a Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) working group that worked on the first set of principles for random-item purchases. They explained that the group considered random-item purchase probability information should be accessible within one-click, but did not mandate specific labels. Therefore, they believed their use of a “?” icon satisfied that approach.
3. F1 Clash said the ‘Golden Spin’ storefront was only shown to consumers after they had used their free ‘Daily Spin’, and that its prizes were significantly more valuable. Therefore, within that context the claim “Up to x10 better prizes” was accurate.
They explained that while both spins were available through the game menu, the Daily Spin always appeared first unless it had already been used that day. As it reset at midnight, the time between viewing the two spins was never more than 24 hours, which they said made the comparison clear and relevant. They also provided a visual comparison of the two prize wheels, including prize details, which they said supported the claim.
Assessment
1. Upheld
CAP Guidance stated that the presence of loot boxes was material to a consumer’s decision to purchase or download a game, particularly to those with specific vulnerabilities. As such, marketers should ensure that advertising for the game made clear that it contained in-game purchasing and, if relevant, that it included random-item purchasing. It stated that, as a rule of thumb, whilst that information did not need to be especially prominent, it should be easily accessible by consumers and straightforward to find. Mention of random-item purchasing should be immediately next to (or part of) information about in-game purchasing more generally. We understood that the mobile game “F1 Clash” was a motorsport game that contained virtual currency and loot boxes such as Golden spins.
Ad (a), which was the App Store listing for the mobile game “F1 Clash”, included a reference to “In-App Purchases” next to the purchase button. Further down the page, the listing included a shortened description of the game that, when expanded, disclosed that it contained random item purchasing (loot boxes).
The ASA acknowledged that the description in ad (a) was controlled by the App Store which meant that the disclosure of loot boxes could not appear next to the in-app purchasing label. We also accepted that the App Store’s system-generated labels could not be customised and that the shortened description had a strict word limit. However, we considered that the presence of loot boxes was material information likely to influence a consumer’s decision to download or engage with the app, and that it needed to be clearly presented and easy to find.
We understood information relating to the app featuring loot boxes appeared after the game description and could only be accessed by consumers selecting “More” and scrolling. Although we accepted it appeared before legal and technical details of the app, we considered the information was not prominent within the app’s long description. We considered that consumers would need to read through the full text to find it. We also considered it was too far from the main call-to-action and not visible at the point consumers were likely to decide whether to download the app, even after expanding the description.
For those reasons, we considered the presence of loot boxes was not sufficiently clear in ad (a) and that it therefore omitted material information.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising)
2. Upheld
We understood that the items received in a loot box were based on chance, and that players would not know which items they had received until after the transaction was complete. CAP Guidance stated that, because random item purchasing involved an element of chance and often encouraged immediate responses, marketers should ensure consumers were not misled about the likelihood of receiving particular items, including rare ones. We understood the Golden Spin storefront was a form of loot box and that there was not an equal chance of winning each of the prizes shown.
Ad (b) featured a circular graphic with 12 prizes spaced evenly around a car as the central spinner. A question mark icon in the top corner could be selected for further information that included the probability of winning each prize.
We considered the design was based on a traditional, physical spinning prize wheel, which consumers would generally understand offered an equal chance of landing on each segment. As the Golden Spin was similarly structured, we considered consumers would interpret it in the same way. Therefore, the overall impression of the ad was that consumers had an equal chance of winning each prize. However, we understood that the actual probabilities varied between each prize, meaning consumers were more likely to win certain prizes over other ones.
We acknowledged that the probabilities of winning each prize were accessible, within one-click via the question mark symbol, and that the symbol was used consistently throughout the app to signpost to further information. We also accepted it was standard across the industry to use symbols such as the questions mark within the industry more generally. However, we considered consumers would likely not recognise the question-mark symbol specifically as a signpost for information related to the probability of winning a prize. Therefore, we did not consider it was sufficiently clear that the symbol would lead to that information.
Because the format of the Golden Spin implied that there was an equal chance of winning each prize, and the ad did not contain any information or sign-posting that was sufficiently clear to indicate to consumers that this was not the case, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
3. Not upheld
We understood that the claim “TRY NOW FOR UP TO X10 BETTER PRIZES” only appeared in ad (b) after a user had accessed their free “Daily Spin”. Consumers would therefore interpret the claim within that context. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim as a comparative one, meaning that the prizes available through the Golden Spin were presented as up to ten times higher in value than those offered by the Daily Spin.
We reviewed prize information provided by F1 Clash, which showed the Golden Spin offered significantly higher-value rewards. Coin prizes were up to 100 times greater, their “Buck rewards” were more frequent and valuable by up to 20 times, and high-value crates replaced lower-tier ones. We considered “up to x10 better prizes” was a fair and substantiated summary of those differences. We also considered that the “up to” wording was clearly presented, setting an appropriate limit on the claim. Because the comparison was accurate and appeared in a context where consumers were likely to understand it, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ads must not appear in the form complained about. We told Hutch Games Ltd t/a F1 Clash to ensure their ads made clear that games contained random item purchasing (loot boxes). We also told them to ensure ads did not imply that consumers had an equal chance of winning different prizes if that was not the case.
