Hey guys, there's some weird conversation in here and misunderstandings let me clear it up.
Firstly, I used to work in law but left a number of years ago and this is in no ways legal advice.
Let me help break this down. The primary legislation governing gambling in the UK is the Gambling Act 2005, which was later amended by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014.
Gambling in Torn touches on several important aspects of gambling regulation. The Gambling Act 2005 defines gambling as playing a game of chance for a prize. A key consideration here is what constitutes a "prize" under the law. The Act specifically addresses this by defining a prize as "money or money's worth."
There are two important elements to consider:
The game mechanics mirror real gambling activities (poker, roulette)
There's a real-money entry point through the ability to purchase in-game currency
The UK Gambling Commission has specifically addressed similar scenarios in their guidance. They consider that even when there's no direct "cash out" option, if players can purchase in-game currency with real money and then use it for gambling-style games, this could still fall under gambling regulations - especially when targeting under-18s.
The key legal principle here stems from the concept of "money's worth." Even if players cannot withdraw winnings as real money, the in-game currency has demonstrable value because:
It can be purchased with real money
It has utility within the game
It can be used to acquire in-game items or advantages
This interpretation has been strengthened by several regulatory decisions, particularly regarding social casino games and similar products. The Gambling Commission has expressed specific concerns about games that normalize gambling behaviours to young people, even when there's no direct monetary prize.
This is specifically with regards to the UK which people seem to be caught up on however, other countries' regulation still apply because it can be accessed from the other countries. The most recent scenario to look at is betting channel points on Twitch streams, this is banned in a handful of countries even though channel points cannot be purchased for real money and have no intrinsic value. This is because gambling is such an insidious addiction that has been shown in multiple studies to severely affect children. Also yes, loot boxes are a highly contentious subject with regards to Fortnite etc and are also banned in multiple countries.
Edit: Let me just state that I don't actually give a shit but just wanted to explain the actual legality around it.
I'm going to preface this by saying that everything I'm talking about is only applicable if anyone decides to do something about it, which is very unlikely.
That terms of use segment would not protect them in the slightest, if anything it's a soft defence from their actions being malicious in nature (which I don't think they are to begin with but this is how it would be examined).
Minors being "unable" to purchase or rather that they are implying that they are over 18 via the purchase is not a factor at all. As I've mentioned previously the "gambling" in question doesn't have to even have a monetary element at all. It's that it serves as an on-ramp to getting minors addicted. It's like saying a drug dealer isn't a drug dealer because they gave the person their first hit free.
The fact that they have nothing in place to restrict minors from using the casino in the game is what's at note here.
To cover something else that people have mentioned. Yes children can physically play GTA however there are laws against selling games to underaged people, the same laws and penalties that apply to selling knives/glue/alcohol/pornography to minors.
I literally quoted to you the legislation and you could have gone and read it and now you've decided to just be a complete arsehole to me for no reason.
You say that the Gambling Act doesn't apply to Torn because Torn isn't a "gambling site" yet I explained why the Gambling Commission would consider Torn to be covered by the Gambling Act regardless, specifically in regards to minors. If you disagree with that fine, I've honestly given up even caring. I guess you could always report Torn to the Gambling Commission and find out what they think.
For your Terms of Use question.
The legal framework here stems from several key principles. First, let's look at the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Section 31 explicitly states that traders cannot use contract terms or notices to reduce your statutory rights or protections under law. In simple terms, a website can't use its terms of service to bypass laws that protect consumers, especially minors.
A useful comparison would be if a website selling alcohol said in its terms "By clicking purchase, you confirm you're over 18." This wouldn't protect the seller from prosecution if they sold alcohol to minors - they still have a legal obligation to verify age properly. The same principle applies to gambling-adjacent activities.
The Gambling Act 2005 goes even further in protecting minors. Section 46 makes it a criminal offense to invite, cause, or permit a child or young person to gamble. The Act specifically designed this as a strict liability offense, meaning that good intentions or attempts to create contractual shields don't provide a defense.
Looking at case law, in Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane [2012] EWHC 1290, the High Court specifically addressed online terms and conditions. The court emphasized that terms of service cannot be used as a technical loophole to avoid regulatory obligations. The judge noted that allowing companies to bypass regulations through clever contractual wording would effectively render consumer protection laws meaningless.
The fundamental principle here is that legal obligations, especially those protecting vulnerable groups like minors, exist independently of any contractual terms. A website's terms of service exist within the framework of the law, not above it. They can add additional obligations, but they cannot remove or circumvent existing legal protections.
This becomes even more relevant when we consider that many of these laws were specifically designed to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly minors. The courts have consistently held that protective legislation cannot be contracted around, regardless of how cleverly the terms are written.
I literally quoted to you the legislation and you could have gone and read it and now you've decided to just be a complete arsehole to me for no reason.
Sorry mate that's too long for me to give a shit about reading. You can spout your feelings as much as you like but I've stated, with sources, the way the law looks at it.
I feel like you're being wilfully ignorant at this point. I've fully explained the way the law sees all of this. If you think that people are fooled by the fact that you have to buy donator packs to turn them into IGC to then gamble then you're wrong. I've also stated that the monetary aspect is just a single aspect, the more concerning part is it being a literal onramp to a harmful addiction that's available to minors.
Please stop quoting the Terms of Use of the site as if that somehow has any bearing on the law. You can't go into a store and steal something wearing a shirt that says "not a thief" and get away with it.
The self ban button has literally nothing to do with this conversation. How does that restrict minors from using the casino? Because they can self impose a ban?
I've already spoke about the fact that you can't withdraw the funds being irrelevant, if you didn't read my previous post then I suggest you do.
I'm not asking for anything, I personally don't give a shit, I just wanted to clear up any confusion about the actual legality of it. The government however would probably ask for something along those lines or for the feature to be removed.
Do I personally think that Torn would ever be investigated for it? No, I think it's such a small fish that it would be a waste of time and money.
I'm going to preface this by saying that everything I'm talking about is only applicable if anyone decides to do something about it, which is very unlikely.
That terms of use segment would not protect them in the slightest, if anything it's a soft defence from their actions being malicious in nature (which I don't think they are to begin with but this is how it would be examined).
Minors being "unable" to purchase or rather that they are implying that they are over 18 via the purchase is not a factor at all. As I've mentioned previously the "gambling" in question doesn't have to even have a monetary element at all. It's that it serves as an on-ramp to getting minors addicted. It's like saying a drug dealer isn't a drug dealer because they gave the person their first hit free.
The fact that they have nothing in place to restrict minors from using the casino in the game is what's at note here.
To cover something else that people have mentioned. Yes children can physically play GTA however there are laws against selling games to underaged people, the same laws and penalties that apply to selling knives/glue/alcohol/pornography to minors.
You've highlighted loot boxes in video games, which is obviously suspect but Torn doesn't have loot boxes. Torn has simulated gambling to the point where the bookies actually gets their odds from real bookies. The gambling in Torn is as close to an on-ramp as you can get.
There's also another interesting case study to look at with Baltaro, an indie card game that uses poker hands as a scoring mechanism being reclassified as an 18+ (I think this is extreme and the classification is BS but you can see the logic).
Hey guys, there's some weird conversation in here and misunderstandings let me clear it up.
Firstly, I used to work in law but left a number of years ago and this is in no ways legal advice.
Let me help break this down. The primary legislation governing gambling in the UK is the Gambling Act 2005, which was later amended by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014.
Gambling in Torn touches on several important aspects of gambling regulation. The Gambling Act 2005 defines gambling as playing a game of chance for a prize. A key consideration here is what constitutes a "prize" under the law. The Act specifically addresses this by defining a prize as "money or money's worth."
There are two important elements to consider:
The game mechanics mirror real gambling activities (poker, roulette)
There's a real-money entry point through the ability to purchase in-game currency
The UK Gambling Commission has specifically addressed similar scenarios in their guidance. They consider that even when there's no direct "cash out" option, if players can purchase in-game currency with real money and then use it for gambling-style games, this could still fall under gambling regulations - especially when targeting under-18s.
The key legal principle here stems from the concept of "money's worth." Even if players cannot withdraw winnings as real money, the in-game currency has demonstrable value because:
It can be purchased with real money
It has utility within the game
It can be used to acquire in-game items or advantages
This interpretation has been strengthened by several regulatory decisions, particularly regarding social casino games and similar products. The Gambling Commission has expressed specific concerns about games that normalize gambling behaviours to young people, even when there's no direct monetary prize.
This is specifically with regards to the UK which people seem to be caught up on however, other countries' regulation still apply because it can be accessed from the other countries. The most recent scenario to look at is betting channel points on Twitch streams, this is banned in a handful of countries even though channel points cannot be purchased for real money and have no intrinsic value. This is because gambling is such an insidious addiction that has been shown in multiple studies to severely affect children. Also yes, loot boxes are a highly contentious subject with regards to Fortnite etc and are also banned in multiple countries.
Edit: Let me just state that I don't actually give a shit but just wanted to explain the actual legality around it.