The Legal Status of In-Game Assets in Esports

Esports has ceased to be merely a means of entertainment and has become a professional industry bringing together millions of players, spectators and investors on a global scale. This development has also given rise to the need for legal regulation. The economic and legal value of in-game assets, such as digital items, characters, costumes, NFTs and similar content, has also increased; this has led to new legal issues arising in many areas within the scope of esports and computer games, such as ownership, licensing, consumer rights and digital security. This article addresses the legal status of in-game assets in esports and the current debates arising from that status.

Esports in the Context of Intellectual Property Law

The element at the core of esports activities is undoubtedly computer games. However, these games are not merely a tool; they are also complex digital works that are subject to copyright protection. The software code, graphic designs, sound effects and even character storylines of games, individually or as a whole, qualify as works and, in this respect, are protected under Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK).

In this context, game developers in the esports ecosystem occupy a very strong position as copyright holders and can impose a significant degree of control and restriction on tournament organisers, broadcasters and professional players.

Moreover, in some cases the players' own performances may also be assessed as “works”; in particular, whether the originality criterion is met is debated in moments where unique strategies, combinations or movements are combined with in-game aesthetics.

Assessment of NFTs for Esports and Computer Games

With the rise of blockchain technology, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have changed understandings of the ownership of digital assets. The esports ecosystem has also been affected by this change; in particular, the buying and selling of in-game items, characters, costumes or digital art elements in the form of NFTs has created a new economic field. This development has brought with it not only a technological transformation but also a legal repositioning in terms of property and intellectual rights.

Although NFTs technically represent the “ownership” of an asset recorded on the blockchain, the legal meaning of this ownership is still debated. It is unclear to what extent a person who purchases an NFT holds rights over the in-game content, and whether that right constitutes a licence or a genuine property right. In most cases, the sale and purchase of NFTs creates only a licence relationship aimed at transferring the right of use; nevertheless, a perception of absolute ownership is created in the public mind.

In the esports context, the use of NFTs has become widespread particularly in fields such as digital collectibles, ticketing systems and player cards. Teams and players generate revenue through NFT projects, while fans support or invest in clubs through these assets.

Issues such as the tax status of NFTs, their impact on consumer rights and the risk of money laundering also form a multi-layered framework that must be taken into account in esports law. Accordingly, the place of NFTs in esports has become not merely an innovative economic model but also an area surrounded by regulatory gaps that must be managed with care.

Assessment of the Legal Dimensions of Skin Gambling and Loot Box Systems

Skin gambling can be defined as players betting using digital in-game items they own (for example costumes, or visual customisations called “skins”, such as weapon finishes) or taking part in games of chance with these assets. In recent years this practice has become widespread in popular games such as “CS:GO”, has created a large market among young users, and sales reaching tens of thousands of dollars are even carried out. However, in most countries these activities are conducted without being subject to traditional gambling law, and this causes serious legal gaps.

From a comparative law perspective, significant differences are observed in the regulation of skin gambling. For example, the United Kingdom, through the Gambling Commission, has expressly defined skin gambling as “gambling with digital items” and has treated the conduct of such activities without a licence as an offence. In the United States, different approaches have been adopted state by state; in some states these activities are brought directly within gambling, while in others differences of interpretation have arisen as to whether the digital item is “money or its equivalent”. Some European countries such as Germany try to control skin gambling indirectly, but since the legal status of digital assets has not been clearly determined, effective supervision cannot be achieved in practice.

In Türkiye, skin gambling is not yet an activity expressly defined at the level of legislation. However, it may be assessed indirectly within the framework of Law No. 7258 on the Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions and Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications Made on the Internet. In particular, the ease of participation by minors, the prevalence of illegal online betting sites and the technical difficulties concerning the traceability of digital property increase the risks in this area.

The legal dimensions of skin gambling concern not only gambling law but also directly a large number of other legal fields such as consumer rights, personal data protection, combating money laundering and the protection of children. For example, the fact that skins can be bought and sold for real money makes it possible for them to be used in illegal markets and thereby to lay the ground for economic crimes outside the game.

Loot box systems, on the other hand, can be defined as digital “chance boxes” that offer players the chance to win random virtual rewards. These boxes, generally acquired for a fee, promise players the possibility of obtaining rare items, while the fact that their contents are not known in advance and that the results depend entirely on chance makes these structures similar to traditional gambling mechanisms. This similarity is risky particularly for vulnerable consumer groups such as children and young people.

Although regulation of loot boxes in the European Union has not been made directly at the level of Union legislation, many Member States have begun to assess these systems under their national laws as gambling or as misleading commercial practices. For example, Belgium has expressly characterised loot box systems as “games of chance” and has banned the sale of games containing these mechanisms. The Netherlands likewise accepts in-game reward systems based on chance, under certain conditions, as unlicensed gambling activity. This diversity shows that the regulatory approach to loot boxes across the EU has not yet settled into a uniform framework.

As for Türkiye, there is no regulation specifically dedicated to the concept of the “loot box” as such. However, under the Law on Consumer Protection No. 6502, practices that mislead the consumer, cause sales based on a lack of information and disturb the economic balance are regarded as unfair commercial practices and may be subject to administrative sanctions. In addition, failure to provide sufficient information in in-game purchases may also be assessed as a breach of pre-contractual obligations. Furthermore, against practices with the potential to harm children's psychological development, the supervisory and warning powers of institutions such as the Ministry of Family and Social Services and RTÜK (Radio and Television Supreme Council) may come into play.

Conclusion

Esports has moved beyond being merely a field of digital entertainment and has become a multi-actor industry in which legal relationships are concentrated. This complex network formed among players, clubs, broadcasters, sponsors, developers and consumers brings with it distinctive problems in different branches of the legal disciplines. Whether in terms of the protection of games under intellectual property law, the legal status of new digital assets such as skin gambling, loot boxes and NFTs, or the validity of professional contracts and dispute resolution mechanisms, all of these show that sector-specific regulation is now unavoidable.

Attorney at Law Mehmet Emre Darıcı