Ad description
An ad for the video game Borderlands 4 seen on a bus, on 1 December 2025. The ad featured a character from the video game and text that stated, “Borderlands 4: Break Free. Play 12th September”.
Issue
The complainant, an academic researcher in game regulation, who understood that the featured game contained in-game purchases, challenged whether the ad was misleading because it omitted material information.
Response
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc t/a Take Two Interactive said Borderlands 4 did not allow players to make in-game purchases as the term was commonly understood. They said the game had no in-game store, displayed no prices and purchases could not be completed within the game. They said players could only buy optional downloadable content (DLC) through third-party platform stores. They said the game’s PEGI “in-game purchases” descriptor had been applied because the game included limited in-game promotion of DLC that linked out to a platform store, which they described as “in-game advertising” rather than in-game purchasing.
They said Borderlands 4 did include limited “in-game advertising” that, on occasion, promoted DLC packs which could be separately purchased, and for that reason, it was awarded the “in-game purchases” content descriptor. The in-game advertising in Borderlands 4 was equivalent to a banner ad available on a website that clicked-through to a store where a consumer may make a purchase.
They said the DLC promotion within the game was minor and non-prominent, limited to a news carousel and home screen items that sometimes promoted DLC and directed players to a platform store. They said the DLC was not a material part of the game because it was limited to a small number of non-consumable packs, there were no loot boxes, virtual currency or recurring microtransactions, and the standard edition provided a complete experience without needing add-ons. They also argued it would be disproportionate to require a disclosure in the ad for optional DLC, drawing comparisons with other retail products that could be expanded with additional optional purchases, for example, board games which could be expanded with additional packs and toys that formed part of a wider collection. In these examples, as long as the ad for the product did not include the additional item/enhancement, no “optional additional add-ons available to purchase” disclosure was typically required.
The ad was featured on a bus when consumers were most likely to be outside and either unable, or at least unlikely, to be thinking about making an immediate transactional decision. In addition, the ad did not feature any explicit calls to action to purchase the game, nor did it link through for example via a QR code or otherwise or prominently direct consumers to a place where they could purchase the game. The only reference to the platforms on which the game was available was a very discrete logo garden towards the bottom of the ad. Once a consumer was ready to make a transactional decision and purchase the game from a platform store or a retail store, notwithstanding the fact that the game did not actually include “in-game purchases”, they would see a prominent disclosure that the game had received PEGI’s “in-game purchases” content descriptor. That content descriptor was prominently included on all platform stores and on the physical packaging for the game when sold at retail. Therefore, the consumer would have seen this information prior to purchase and would not have been misled.
They agreed that for some games, the presence of in-game purchases could be material information that required disclosure in certain ads. However, applying that requirement to all ads for games that had a PEGI “in-game purchases” content descriptor risked reducing the effectiveness of the disclosure and confusing or misleading consumers.
Assessment
Not upheld
CAP guidance on advertising in-game purchases stated that for some consumers, particularly those with specific vulnerabilities, the presence of in-game purchasing may be material to their decision to purchase or download a game. As such, marketers should ensure that advertising for such games made clear that they contained in-game purchasing.
The ASA acknowledged Take Two Interactive’s comment that players could only buy optional DLC through third-party platform stores and that the PEGI “in-game purchases” descriptor had been applied because the game included limited in-game promotion of DLC that linked out to a platform store, which they described as “in-game advertising”.
We considered consumers were likely to understand “in-game purchases” broadly, including where a game offered paid add-ons or additional content, regardless of whether the payment step happened within the game itself or via a linked platform store. We therefore did not agree that Take-Two Interactive’s distinction between purchases being completed “in game” and purchases being completed on a platform store necessarily meant that consumers would regard the game as having no in-game purchasing. We also considered that, because the game had been given PEGI’s “in-game purchases” descriptor and that the DLC could be used within the game itself, some consumers would consider that information relevant when deciding whether to buy the game.
However, we also took into account the nature of the additional content available in Borderlands 4. We understood that the game was classified 18 and that the additional paid content consisted of downloadable content, such as new stories and maps, characters, weapons, vehicles and gear rather than mechanics such as random-item purchasing (loot boxes), virtual currency or other repeat-purchase features. We further understood that the game could be fully enjoyed without purchasing any of the DLC.
We also noted Take-Two Interactive’s comment that the ad did not include an explicit call to action to purchase and did not include a price. While we acknowledged that the ad included the text, “Play 12th September” and featured platform store logos, we noted that the ad did not direct consumers specifically to a point of purchase, for example, via a QR code. In that context, we took the view that the bus ad, which consumers were likely to see briefly, and sometimes at a distance while moving, was further from a consumer’s purchase decision than advertising presented in retail or online shopping contexts, for example. We further considered Take-Two Interactive’s comments that any DLC purchases could only be completed through a platform store, and that consumers would see PEGI’s “in-game purchases” descriptor on platform stores and on physical packaging prior to purchase of the game itself.
For those reasons, we considered that, although information about in-game purchases was material in some contexts, including for consumers with specific vulnerabilities, its omission from the ad in this particular context was unlikely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken. In particular, the game did not include mechanics such as random-item purchasing, virtual currency or other repeat-purchase features, and the paid content was limited to optional DLC packs. In addition, we understood that consumers would see PEGI’s “in-game purchases” descriptor closer to the point of purchase. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
