Do game developers have to follow legal responsibility against game addiction?

In June, 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) in the eleventh edition (ICD - 11) of the international guidelines " International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Issues " to Classify Injuries and Diseases, interferes with daily living " Game obstacle " that gets caught in the game as it goes out has been added as a new disease. If the game is addictive, is it legal responsibility for game producers and app developers, or blogs dealing with legal issues in the Internet and the game industry Blogs on the Internet & Social Media Law Blog Lawyers Allison Selick He is referring.

If Videogames and Apps Are Addictive, Should Designers Worry about Liability?
https://www.socialgameslaw.com/2018/07/videogames-apps-legal-liability.html

ICD - 11 is an international standard for clinicians worldwide to diagnose medical conditions, and it is possible that a game disorder may be diagnosed at a hospital because "game disorder" is described there Become. American psychiatry industry has criticized WHO 's decision that "There is not enough data to consider game disorder as a mental disorder", and there are not many voices questioning the addictiveness of the game.

There is tobacco on what is also pointed out as addictive. Smoking was not thought to be addictive until mid-20th century, and nicotine was not considered a drug. But in the 1990s, the medical community acknowledged that nicotine is a substance that induces dependence and smoking causes various diseases. In addition, because cases precedent that regard nicotine as legally "drug" also appeared, regulations on tobacco have been strengthened.

In 1991, the American Medical Association raised the claim that Joe Camel, a mascot who was popular at the promotion of cigarette camel , is urging children to smoke. Data showing that 32.8% of tobacco that a minor actually smokes illegally actually was Camel also appeared, and as a result of repeated trials and discussions, RJ Reynolds · Tobacco · Company voluntered Joe · Camel's campaign I announced it will be finished in a matter of time.

by A. Currell

In the United States, there are precedents that "children do not always know what they are doing, and can not condemn them". Even if you are playing after adults grasp "playing games with a health risk", children may play without knowing any risk at all, so the game producers and developers We must keep that in mind. Just like when the risk of lung cancer has been written to the outer cigarette box, we present a warning message to the children and parents in the game and package "Potentially addictive to the game" Celick says that it may be said to be wise to do it.

In addition, Mr. Celic is comparing gamble with video games. While tobacco shows clear data that 67.5% of smokers cause nicotine addiction, clear data on poisoning is not presented for gambling and video games. Smoking is linked to concrete diseases such as lung cancer and myocardial infarction, but gambling and video games are "troublesome in studies and work", both of which are not yet clearly addictive.

In case of gambling addiction, should the casino follow legal responsibility? In 2010, gamblers got all the 125,000 dollars (about 14 million yen) prepared in the form of borrowing money from the casino, and gambler who got no sentence was unable to return money. The casino side sued the gambler, but the opposing gambler argued against the opposition that "the casino knew that he was a pathological gambler and used gambling addiction for profit". The Indiana State Supreme Court dismissed Gambler's appeal and questioned whether casinos should take legal responsibility for gambling addicts .

However, unlike games that youngsters and youngsters can enjoy, gambling is entertainment for adult partners and children can not enter the casino. Also, compared to games, gambling is quite severely regulated and it is also a big difference. In the case of gambling, there are precedents that do not seek liability against casinos, but in the case of games, there is a possibility that children may receive a diagnosis of "game disorder", and a stricter judgment is given than gambling Celick speculates that it can be thought of.

Looking at past cases, it is not necessarily the case that the game producers and the developers of the game are responsible for the legal responsibility of the game disorder. However, as there is a premise that not only adults but also children will play, as a result of the trial, it is probably conceivable that orders for payment of hundreds of millions of reparations will be issued, and the possibility that strict regulation can be imposed from Congress. Therefore Celic insists that game producers and developers of apps should be more careful about possible problems arising from game obstacles.