Presentation
—
During the Digital Week—organized by the Paris Bar Association (Ordre des avocats de Paris) from March 30 to April 3—our firm had the pleasure of presenting, alongside Sophie Roman and Mathieu Bui, on contemporary legal issues within the field of Gaming Law.
Aimed at industry professionals, the session explored the significance of this major cultural sector, the contemporary legal challenges faced by its stakeholders, and the opportunities it presents.
View the full Digital Week program here: https://lnkd.in/eHZFkwPX
Video Games and Gaming: Toward a Convergence of Applicable Laws
As the leading cultural industry—boasting substantial economic figures—the video game sector currently gives rise to a host of complex issues. Long pigeonholed as mere software, video games are now recognized as “complex works,” situated at the crossroads of multiple legal disciplines.
The objective of this training session was to examine how the law frames this burgeoning creativity while simultaneously safeguarding both economic stakeholders and end-users. Between the consolidation of traditional legal principles (intellectual property, contract law) and the emergence of novel or atypical regulations (gambling laws, misleading commercial practices, generative AI, JONUM, platform regulation), the legal framework governing the gaming industry is continuously evolving in tandem with the sector’s growth.
Video Game Law: From Creation to Interaction
Under French law, the video game suffers from a semantic paradox: it enjoys no legal definition within the Intellectual Property Code, existing textually only through the General Tax Code for the purposes of tax credits.
This lack of formal status long compelled judges to treat the video game merely as simple software (under a unitary legal regime). However, technological and artistic evolution led to a major jurisprudential shift with the 2009 Cryo ruling, in which the Court of Cassation formally recognized the status of the video game as a “complex work.” This distributive regime now allows for the application of specific legal rules to each individual component of the game, rather than subjecting the entire work to the restrictive legal framework governing software.
This legal classification underscores the exceptional density of copyright-protectable elements contained within a single production. Indeed, a video game aggregates a multitude of creative works: lines of code and database architecture, but also storylines, musical compositions, graphics, character designs, and sometimes even motion-capture choreography. From a legal standpoint, this layering of elements necessitates rigorous management of the chain of rights.
Each contributor potentially holds copyright over their specific creative contribution; consequently, studios are required to secure the assignment of these rights through highly precise employment or service agreements to prevent any ownership claim from blocking the commercial exploitation or subsequent updating of the game.
Video Game Ownership and Content: A Legal Puzzle?
The training session focused on highlighting the complexities surrounding the ownership of the products and services that video games represent today.
Video Game Creation: Addressing the challenges of asset protection through licensing and the determination of rights ownership.
Video Game Distribution: Revealing the significant evolution of ownership frameworks—marked by the pivotal shift from physical media to digital formats—and raising complex questions regarding the exhaustion of rights and the digital secondary market (as illustrated by the Steam and UsedSoft case law).
Player-Driven Creation and Usage: Activities undertaken by players—particularly through user-generated content (UGC), mods, and fan games—give rise to additional legal issues concerning the ownership of in-game assets.
Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI) and Video Games: Particular emphasis was placed on generative AI, which is revolutionizing artistic direction and presenting unprecedented challenges regarding unintentional copyright infringement and the protection of creative works under copyright law.
Gaming Law: Advertising, Studio Liability, Personal Data, Distribution, etc.
The video game sector sits at the intersection of various digital industries. As such, it has proven insightful to examine gaming through the lens of the various branches of applicable digital law:
- The distribution of video game content via online platforms or television broadcasts;
- Studio liability regarding player behavior;
- The transparency requirements mandated in advertising;
- The regulation of digital marketplaces under the aegis of the Digital Markets Act (DMA);
- The protection of personal data—which is extensively collected and utilized within the sector—among other issues.
Emerging Gaming Law Issues: Dark Patterns, Loot Boxes, & AI Litigation
Gaming law is undergoing a profound transformation, shedding its former image as a “lawless zone” to enter an era of rigorous regulation centered on user protection and interface ethics.
This newfound maturity is particularly evident in legal scholarship and court proceedings challenging “Dark Patterns”—design features found in certain games, particularly mobile titles. These mechanisms—which straddle the line between optimizing the player experience and manipulating the consumer—exploit players’ cognitive biases to induce impulse purchases or to make the subscription cancellation process unreasonably complex.
Concurrently, lawmakers are addressing the growing convergence between digital entertainment and gambling. The regulation of “loot boxes”—and the emergence of JONUM (Games with Monetizable Digital Objects) incorporating NFTs—underscore this determination to clarify the boundary between the gaming economy and the betting economy, with the aim of preventing risks associated with addiction and financial exploitation.
FreeFortnite & Palworld: This era of regulation is also marked by high-profile legal clashes. The standoff between Epic Games and Apple—sparked by the mobile version of the game Fortnite—symbolizes a challenge to closed ecosystems and the monopolistic practices of digital marketplaces, paving the way for greater freedom of distribution.
In the realm of pure creative endeavor, legal disputes such as the Nintendo vs. Palworld case raise fundamental questions regarding the boundaries of intellectual property when weighed against artistic inspiration and video game genre conventions. These lawsuits are not merely commercial disputes; they establish major precedents that define the precarious balance between protecting the legacy assets of industry giants and fostering the need for innovation among new entrants.
The Curious Legal Landscape of Esports: A Flourishing World of Video Game Competitions
Video game competitions—or “esports”—distinguish themselves within the broader gaming sector through the application of a legal framework rendered complex by the diverse array of stakeholders involved. Indeed, this hybrid legal framework appears to struggle to strike a balance between the strict regulations introduced by the 2016 Digital Republic Act and the actual practices of industry professionals, which oscillate between the legal regimes governing traditional sports, event management, and advertising partnerships.
Beyond the minimalist legal framework established by the legislature to ensure maximum freedom for the sector’s growth, esports law entails mastering the issues pertinent to the various stakeholders involved in video game competitions: game publishers and their absolute control over the video games serving as the basis for competition; the structuring of team operations—particularly their contractual relationships with players; the challenges associated with organizing esports events; and the regulatory oversight of their broadcasting, notably via dedicated social media platforms such as Twitch, YouTube, and others.
This structural dependence on rights holders complicates the entire value chain, particularly regarding issues related to sponsorship, ticketing, and audiovisual broadcasting.
The specific challenges facing the esports sector reflect the immense diversity of its practices and stakeholders:
- The legal nexus between traditional sports and esports highlights a fundamental distinction: whereas a discipline such as football is “rights-free,” esports is predicated upon an intellectual work owned by a publisher. The latter exercises sovereign authority over its title—a fact that directly impacts the organization of competitions and the long-term viability of investments.
Read our dedicated publication on this topic: December 15, 2025 – Is (or Could) Esports Be a Sport?
- The organization of esports events entails compliance with a significant number of diverse obligations—a process that becomes increasingly complex depending on the scale of the competition and the specific stakeholders involved.
See our publication covering these points: A Guide to the Legal Framework for Competitions.
- The contractual relationship between clubs and players was intended to be stabilized by the 2016 Act and the introduction of the “esports fixed-term contract.” However, the reality of the activities performed by players often extends beyond the strict confines of employment, taking place outside the specific legal framework established by the law. This creates an ongoing risk of contract reclassification—specifically, the risk that the arrangement could be reclassified as a standard employment contract—a risk that clubs must scrupulously monitor. Other issues—including the status of esports agents, the regulation of specialized sponsorship, the protection of player health and integrity, and esports betting—were also addressed to complete the legal framework applicable to the gaming sector.
We would like to thank everyone in attendance for the discussions and for sharing our passion for video games.
