EA Legal Setback: Israeli Court Greenlights Class Action Over FIFA Loot Boxes

Gaming giant Electronic Arts (EA) is facing a significant legal battle in Israel. The Tel Aviv District Court rejected a motion by EA Swiss Sàrl to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit on Monday. The plaintiff, an Israeli resident who purchased virtual tokens in FIFA 23, alleges that the company’s randomized in-game packs promote addictive behavior and constitute illegal gambling. EA unsuccessfully argued that Israeli courts lacked jurisdiction over the Swiss-based entity. Judge Tamar Snunit-Forrer disagreed, clearing the way for a case that could have far-reaching implications for the entire gaming industry.

The allegations are substantial. According to the motion, filed in March 2025, EA effectively operates an illegal gambling platform under the guise of a sports game aimed at children and young adults. The plaintiff claims that the company fails to disclose the contents or odds of the loot boxes before purchase. Represented by attorneys Lior Lahav and Hadar Stempo, the plaintiff also submitted an expert opinion by Dr. Liraz Margalit, which addresses how these randomized mechanics can lead to addictive behavior through psychological triggers.

Numbers and facts

As part of the current ruling, the court ordered EA to pay the plaintiff 10,000 NIS (Israeli New Shekels) in legal costs. While this amount is a drop in the ocean for a company of EA's size, the potential liabilities if the class action is certified are massive. EA argued in court that the mere presence of chance does not make a game illegal gambling. The company maintains that FIFA is primarily a game of skill and understanding rather than pure luck.

In a controversial move, EA attempted to argue that if its games were considered illegal gambling, the plaintiff and other class members would also be in violation of the law. Judge Snunit-Forrer was not persuaded by this line of reasoning. She noted that the evidentiary basis presented by the applicant establishes a potential legal cause of action, without yet making a definitive determination on the legality of the loot boxes themselves.

“Without making a definitive determination, the factual and evidentiary basis presented by the applicant establishes a potential legal cause of action against the respondent.” - Tamar Snunit-Forrer, Judge at the Tel Aviv District Court

Background

Loot box controversies are a recurring theme for EA. In the United States, the company faces lawsuits regarding the alleged use of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA). Plaintiffs like Jason Zajonc accuse EA of manipulating game difficulty to frustrate players, thereby encouraging them to buy more Player Packs. Similarly, a case in Canada accuses EA of running an unlicensed, illegal gaming system through loot boxes. EA continues to deny these allegations, calling the claims baseless and a misrepresentation of their games.

Why it matters for German players

The situation is particularly relevant for German gamers due to the strict Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). While loot boxes are currently handled under youth protection laws in Germany, the line between gaming and gambling is increasingly blurred. The German Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) ensures that operators follow strict rules, including a 1,000 Euro monthly deposit limit and a 1 Euro stake limit for virtual slots. While FIFA packs do not yet fall under these specific gambling regulations, rulings like the one in Israel put pressure on German lawmakers to classify loot boxes as gambling and integrate them into systems like LUGAS.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

Licensed German operators must strictly adhere to player protection mandates, while video game companies like EA have operated in a gray zone without gambling licenses. If international courts eventually classify loot boxes as gambling, companies like EA would be required to apply for GGL licenses or radically change their business models in Germany. This would create a level playing field, as legal casinos already invest heavily in addiction prevention and technical monitoring, while game publishers have largely avoided these costs and oversight until now.