Welcome to Degen Lawyer's Newsletter, this week we bring you some fascinating news. Every week we serve up curated analysis, hot takes, and expert commentary on all things emerging tech and law, sprinkled with a healthy dose of wacky and meme-worthy. Enjoy!

In this week’s edition:

WHAT’S HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD

1. Meta and EU face off over content moderation fees

Meta, owner of Facebook, is challenging the European Union in court over fees for the new Digital Services Act (DSA). This law tightens regulations on large online platforms and makes them pay for its enforcement. Meta claims the fee system is unfair because unprofitable companies with many users don't have to pay, leaving the cost to others. While Meta agrees with the DSA's goals and claims compliance with it, they believe the fee structure needs to be changed. Big tech and Big government clash again! Will big tech be the big man in this case? Stay tuned to find out!

2. India to come out with online gaming regulations soon

The government nixed plans for industry-led regulation, deeming proposals too biased. Now, they'll be the direct boss for online games involving money. ‍ A new system for approvals and licenses is being built, replacing the scrapped "self-regulate" idea. A proper regulatory framework, however, might have to wait until after the elections. After the tumultuous relationship between the industry and government over GST classifications, the new gaming regulations will prove to be a must-watch popcorn-worthy development.

3. India launches UPI and Rupay card services in Mauritius and Sri Lanka

India launched its popular UPI payment system and RuPay cards in Sri Lanka and Mauritius, aiming to boost digital payments and financial connections. Indian tourists can now use their phones to pay in Mauritius and vice versa, while RuPay cards become accepted in both countries. This move deepens India's focus on its neighbours and strengthens regional cultural ties. The plan is to keep expanding access and services in the future. Digital India is slowly growing into digital Asia through the lens of India! Whether the benefits of UPI system will percolate to other countries is something that is yet to be seen.

THIS WEEKS DEEP READ

Understanding Gaming Regulation through China's Recent developments on Gaming Regulation

In the ever-evolving digital landscape, the intersection of technology, entertainment, and regulation presents a complex tableau of challenges and opportunities. A recent development in China's gaming industry offers a prime example of how regulatory frameworks are attempting to adapt to the rapid growth of digital gaming and the subsequent reactions from the market and industry stakeholders.

Understanding Gaming Regulation and Its Necessity

At its core, gaming regulation refers to the legal and ethical frameworks established by governmental bodies to oversee the development, distribution, and consumption of video games. These regulations aim to protect consumers, especially minors, from potential harms associated with excessive gaming, such as addiction, financial loss, and exposure to inappropriate content.

The need for gaming regulation arises from the dual nature of video games as sources of entertainment and potential vehicles for gambling-like behaviours. With the advent of in-game purchases, loot boxes, and other monetisation strategies, the line between gaming and gambling has increasingly blurred. This convergence has raised concerns about the potential for gaming to lead to addiction and financial exploitation, particularly among younger players who are more susceptible to such risks.

The Role of Spending Limits and Regulatory Measures

To address these concerns, regulators worldwide have considered various measures, including spending limits, age restrictions, and transparency requirements for in-game transactions. The rationale behind these measures is supported by research indicating that excessive spending on video games can lead to negative financial, social, and psychological outcomes. For instance, studies have shown that compulsive in-game spending can contribute to significant financial strain, interpersonal issues, and mental health problems, including anxiety and depression.

In this context, spending limits and other regulatory measures are designed to curb the potential for harm by creating a safer and more responsible gaming environment. Such measures not only protect consumers but also contribute to the long-term sustainability of the gaming industry by fostering trust and credibility among players and the broader public.

 China's Draft Video Game Rules

China's National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) introduced draft rules targeting the online gaming sector. This regulatory initiative was part of a broader effort, as analysed earlier, to address growing concerns over gaming addiction and the financial exploitation of gamers, particularly minors. The proposed rules represented a significant step towards tightening the oversight of a rapidly expanding digital entertainment industry.

The Essence of the Proposed Regulations

The draft rules put forth by the NPPA were multifaceted. Two specific provisions within these rules quickly became the focal points of public and industry scrutiny:

1. Combat Restrictions: One of the more controversial aspects of the proposal was the suggestion to ban video games from forcing players into combat scenarios. This provision seemed to target the core mechanics of many popular multiplayer online games, where player-versus-player (PvP) combat is a fundamental element. The industry and gaming community expressed confusion and concern over this proposal, questioning how such a rule could be implemented without fundamentally altering the nature of many games.

2. Spending Limits and Incentive Bans: The second critical provision aimed to impose spending limits within games and eliminate features that incentivise players to make in-game purchases. This part of the draft sought to directly address the financial risks associated with gaming, particularly the potential for significant expenditure on virtual items or currencies. The goal was to protect consumers, especially younger players, from predatory monetisation practices that could lead to financial strain or addiction.

Industry Reaction and Subsequent Developments

The announcement of these draft rules sparked an immediate backlash from the gaming industry and its consumer base. Market reactions were swift, with significant declines in the stock values of leading gaming companies such as Tencent and NetEase, reflecting investor apprehension about the potential impact of these regulations on the industry's profitability and growth.

However, in a surprising turn of events, the NPPA removed the draft rules from its website shortly after the public consultation period concluded. This withdrawal led to speculation about potential revisions to the proposed regulations, indicating that the feedback from the consultation period might lead to substantial changes in the regulatory approach.

Analysing the Implications

The removal of the draft rules and the regulatory uncertainty it engendered had immediate positive effects on the market, with shares of major gaming companies rebounding. This market response highlighted the delicate balance regulators must strike between protecting consumers and supporting industry growth.

Analysts and industry observers have posited that the NPPA's decision to reconsider the draft rules reflects a broader recognition of the complexities of regulating the digital gaming space. It suggests a possible shift towards a more collaborative regulatory strategy, emphasising dialogue with stakeholders and possibly a more nuanced understanding of gaming dynamics.

 Forward-Looking Perspectives

The episode underscores the challenges facing regulators in addressing the legitimate concerns associated with online gaming, such as addiction and financial exploitation, without stifling innovation or unduly burdening a significant sector of the digital economy. As the NPPA and other stakeholders navigate these issues, the global gaming community will watch closely to see how China's regulatory landscape evolves and what precedents it may set for other countries grappling with similar challenges.

DID YOU KNOW?

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC), in a statement, said that any criminal who makes profits over 5 Billion Korean Won (Approximately $ 3.76 million) from crypto-related illicit activities will be liable to face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. With an active crypto economy, South Korea’s move is a significant development to promote ethical and legal uses of crypto currencies.

If you would like to receive regular updates on all things regulatory and policy in the emerging technology space, please click the subscribe button below and follow us on our socials and share it with others you think will enjoy it!