Digital Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Exploitative Game Monetization in Indonesia and The Netherlands

Rifansyah Nugraha; Diani Sadiawati

doi:10.37680/almanhaj.v8i2.9899

Authors

Rifansyah Nugraha National Development University “Veteran” Jakarta, Indonesia
Diani Sadiawati National Development University “Veteran” Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v8i2.9899

Keywords:

Game Monetization; Analysis; Predatory Monetization; Gacha; Consumer Protection

Abstract

Rapid technological advancements have prompted online game companies to implement monetization in their games to generate revenue; games that employ monetization are typically found in the gacha genre. The implementation of monetization is a cause for concern because such monetization schemes may constitute unfair or exploitative practices that are not yet adequately regulated under Indonesian law. This study aims to examine a comparative analysis of legal protections for consumers against monetization in gacha games by gaming companies in Indonesia and the Netherlands, and to propose regulatory solutions that the government can implement to address the legal vacuum surrounding such monetization practices in Indonesia. This study employs a normative legal methodology using a legislative approach. The data utilized are sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study indicate that Indonesia has not yet specifically regulated the characteristics of probability-based gacha monetization systems. This situation creates a regulatory gap in digital consumer protection. The effectiveness of consumer protection can be enhanced by integrating a modern, digital-risk-based framework, supported by a dedicated regulatory body to enforce it.

References

Brewer, A. (2020). The Hunt for Loot: Proposed Solutions to More Effectively Regulate Addictive Gambling Mechanics in Video Games—Journal of Law and Policy, 29(1), 158.

Cao, R., Zhang, W., & Sun, F. (2024). Price discrimination in mobile gacha games: A Comprehensive Study of the Scarcity–Pricing, Gachaing–User Profiling, and Recharging–Profiting Models. Managerial and Decision Economics, 45(6), 3716–3733. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4192

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 11 2005 Concerning Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices in the Internal Market and Amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('Unfair Commercial Practices Directive') (Text with EEA Relevance), Consil, EP, 149 OJ L (2005). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/29/oj

Firdaus, M. B. (2025). Dialektika Keadilan, Kepastian, Kemanfaatan Hukum dalam Perspektif Gustav Radbruch pada Hukum Indonesia. Jurnal Kajian Hukum dan Kebijakan Publik| E-ISSN: 3031-8882, 3(1), 357–367.

Goodstein, S. (2021). When the Cat is Away: Techlash, Loot Boxes, and Regulating" Dark Patterns" in the Video Game Industry's Monetization Strategies. University of Colorado Law Review, 92(1), 285–335.

Gunia, B. C., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Vicarious Entrapment: Your Sunk Costs, My Escalation of Commitment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1238–1244.

Hadjon, P. M. (1987). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Rakyat di Indonesia: Sebuah Studi tentang Prinsip-Prinsipnya, Penanganannya oleh Pengadilan dalam Lingkungan Peradilan Umum dan Pembentukan Peradilan Administrasi Negara. Bina Ilmu. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=zzjagwaacaaj

King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2018). Predatory Monetization Schemes in Video Games (e.g., 'Loot boxes') and Internet Gaming Disorder. Addiction, 113(11), 1967–1969. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14286

King, D. L., Russell, A., Gainsbury, S. M., Delfabbro, P. H., & Hing, N. (2016). The Cost of Virtual Wins: An Examination of Gambling-Related Risks in Youth Who Spend Money on Social Casino Games. Akadémiai Kiadó. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/22033

Kusuma, R. (2025). Konsep Perjudian pada Sistem Gacha di Game Online (menurut Pasal 303 Kuhp dan Fatwa Mui Jatim No 1 Tahun 2022) Skripsi [Bachelor Thesis, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta]. https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/83894

Leahy, D. (2022). Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Journal of Consumer Policy, 45(3), 561–592.

Luqatma, J. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pemain Atas Pemberlakuan Sistem Gacha Pada Game Online Ditinjau Dari Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1999 Tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa.

Mai, Y., & Hu, B. (2023). Optimizing Free-to-Play Multiplayer Games with a Premium Subscription. Management Science, 69(6), 3437–3456.

Markt, A. C. (2020, February 11). Guidelines on the Protection of the Online Consumer | ACM [Regulations]. https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/guidelines-protection-online-consumer

Marzuki, P. D. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Prenada Media. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ckzadwaaqbaj

Maurushat, A., & Nguyen, K. (2022). The Legal Obligation to Provide Timely Security Patching and Automatic Updates. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 3(2), 437–465.

Miru, A., & Yodo, S. (2008). Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen. Raja Grafindo Persada

Mukti Fajar, N. D., & Achmad, Y. (2010). Dualisme penelitian hukum: Normatif & empiris. Pustaka pelajar.

NGA. (2018). Study into loot boxes: A treasure or a burden? https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default

Nong, M. N. (2025). Predatory Game Monetization: Going Beyond Loot Boxes and Gambling. Preprint]. PsyArXiv. Recuperado de https://miaworld. neocities. org/files/predatory_game_monetization. pdf.

Pemayun, A., & Indrawati, A. A. S. (2022). Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Konsumen atas Pemberlakuan Gacha pada Game Online. Journal, 11(5), 10.

Pour, S. (2024). Experience of Legal Regulation of Lootboxes in Different Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2(2), 345–371. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.18

Putri, M., Rahmawati, A., A., H., I., & AR, Z. (2023). Critical Review of the Legal Regulation of Microtransaction 'Gacha': A Comparative Study of Islamic Criminal Law and National Criminal Law. Al-Risalah Jurnal Ilmu Syariah dan Hukum, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.24252/al-risalah.vi.39934

Rahim, A. (2023). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Ahli dalam Proses Peradilan. The Prosecutor Law Review, 1(2), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.64843/prolev.v1i2.12

Rosmawati, S. H. M. H. (2017). Pokok-Pokok Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen. Prenadamedia Group. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=3bvndwaaqbaj

Sadiawati, D., Dirkareshza, R., & Fauzan, M. (2023). Rekonstruksi Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Investasi Bodong: Studi Komparasi Indonesia dan Amerika. Halu Oleo Law Review, 7(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.33561/holrev.v7i2.25

Sagala, M. J. P., Muttaqin, M., Chamidah, D., Simarmata, J., Karim, A., Samosir, K., Ardiana, D. P. Y., Antares, J., & Jamaludin, J. (2021). Hukum dan Cybercrime. Yayasan Kita Menulis.

Salinger, L. (2026). Encyclopedia of White-Collar and Corporate Crime (2 ed., Vols. 1–2). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452276175

Satjipto, R. (2000). Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 19.

Suratman, & Philips Dillah. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Dilengkapi Tata Cara & Contoh Penulisan Karya Ilmiah Bidang Hukum. Alfabeta Bandung.

Susilo, S. A., & Muthia, S. (2025). The Legal Perspective Tug-of-War in Determining The Status of Loot Boxes and Gacha as Gambling. Jurnal Hukum Sehasen, 11(1), 39-44-39–44.

Suwandi, D. (2022). Praktik Monetisasi pada Aplikasi Tiktok Tinjauan Fatwa Dsn-Mui Nomor 62/Dsn-Mui/Xii/2007 Tentang Akad Ju’alah dan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (Studi di akun TikTok Tips Skincare @rikhalaila).

Utomo, A. P. (2021). Loot Box System in Online Video Games as Gambling Based on Indonesian Criminal Law. Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Wibawa, I., Sukranatha, A., & Priyanto, I. (2019). Perlindungan Konsumen Terhadap Kecurangan Pengisian Bahan Bakar Minyak pada Stasiun Pengisian Bahan Bakar Umum di Bali. Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum, 7, 1. https://doi.org/10.24843/KM.2019.v07.i02.p14

Xiao, L. Y. (2024). Failing to Protect the Online Consumer: Poor Compliance with Dutch Loot Box and Video Game Consumer Protection Guidelines. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tmg34

Xiao, L. Y. (2024). Loot box state of play 2023: Law, Regulation, Policy, and Enforcement around the World. Gaming Law Review, 28(10), 450–483. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2024.0006

Xiao, L. Y., Henderson, L. L., Nielsen, R. K. L., & Newall, P. W. S. (2022). Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: A Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches. Current Addiction Reports, 9(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-022-00424-9

Xiao, L. Y., Henderson, L. L., Yang, Y., & Newall, P. W. S. (2024). Gaming the System: Suboptimal Compliance with Loot Box Probability Disclosure Regulations in China. Behavioral Public Policy, 8(3), 590–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.23

Yamakami, T. (2013). Historical View of Mobile Social Game Evolution in Japan: Retrospective Analysis of Success Factors (hlm. 739).

Yefta Christopherus Asia Sanjaya. (2023, Juni 8). Kecanduan Game, Anak 13 Tahun Habiskan Rp 950 Juta Tabungan Orangtua, Hanya Tersisa Rp 1.000. Kompas.com. https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2023/06/09/063000965/kecanduan-game-anak-13-tahun-habiskan-rp-950-juta-tabungan-orangtua-hanya.