Leon Y. Xiao against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3722
Council Meeting: 17 March 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Errors
Overview
1. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published a December 18, 2024, online article titled, Programme launched to combat impacts of gambling-like games. Leon Xiao complains the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance; Principle (4) Comment and fact; and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) and Principle (12).
The Article
2. This article is based on a Morning Report on-air interview with Problem Gambling Foundation director of advocacy and public health Andrée Froude.
3. The foundation says the line between gaming and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred because of in-game loot boxes which aim to mimic gambling.
4. Loot boxes are virtual containers that hold random items that can be used in a game, such as a new character or weapon. Gamers often must spend real money to buy them. This means they are essentially buying a chance to win an item that they really want, but there is no guarantee they will get it.
5. Ms Froude says: "It's the intermittent reward. Winning what you want only now and again. We know that's a powerful way to get people to repeat a behaviour ... " This is where the similarity to gambling is evident, and that education is key to combating the issue.
6. The foundation has partnered with the Drug Foundation Secondary Schools Programme Tūturu to develop resources to help students navigate between gambling and gaming.
7. "We know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes, and in Australia they have put a classification on them to warn parents and to restrict them young people aged over 15," Ms Froude says.
8. The article says it is possible to ban games, but many come in from overseas and many jurisdictions are struggling with bans.
The Complaint
9. Mr Xiao is an academic researcher of video game regulation.
10. In his January 3, 2025, complaint to RNZ, Mr Xiao says the interviewee made a factual mistake on air that was not corrected. That mistake was then republished online by RNZ and another news outlet.
11. Only Belgium has banned loot boxes. Other countries have imposed regulations but these “fall significantly short of a ban’’. This misled the audience into wrongly believing that New Zealand may be falling behind.
12. The article also stated: “… and many jurisdictions are struggling with the bans.” The reference to “many jurisdictions” is incorrect. RNZ has not conducted its own research but merely reproduced the mistake the interviewee made.
13. The initial complaint cited Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance.
14. Principle (12) was not initially cited because it was acknowledged a delay in responding may be deemed acceptable during the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
15. Mr Xiao complained to the Council on February 10. He says how loot boxes are regulated in other countries is an important aspect of the article.
16. Readers may have been unaware of the existence of loot boxes, and having been made aware and becoming concerned, would then have been curious as to how they are regulated (if at all) in New Zealand and beyond. The radio show specifically sought to provide this information on regulation but failed to do so accurately.
17. RNZ invited the interviewee to comment on regulation and advocate for a certain position and then sought further detailed comments about the implementation of regulations.
18. The two incorrect facts and opinions based on them were sought by RNZ on air and then published online.
19. Principle (4) Comment and Fact has been breached because the material facts of how other countries regulate loot boxes on which an opinion was based were not accurate.
20. Mr Xiao says the main reason for his complaint was to get the mistakes - which RNZ neither admits nor denies in its correspondence to him – fixed as soon as possible but it is now nearly two months after the original publication and the mistakes remain.
21. RNZ should have conducted its own research on the point which would have led to a correction quickly resolving the matter.
22. He is further concerned to learn that the same foundation spokesperson was invited back onto RNZ Morning Report to discuss another issue on January 15 while his complaint was live and RNZ was trying to seek clarity on the issue from the foundation. This suggests the foundation has been in communication with RNZ, albeit in relation to other matters.
23. Principle (12) is breached because RNZ has not published a correction with due haste.
The Response
24. RNZ acknowledged the complaint on January 3 and undertook to reply within the required 10 days. It responded fully on January 24 by saying it had sought further input from the Problem Gambling Foundation. The foundation had still not responded at the time of writing “but we are able to make a ruling on the complaint without their further input’’.
25. The article focussed on explaining to the public what “loot boxes” are in online gaming and how the foundation views the purchasing of content using real money is a potential problem.
26. The fact that loot boxes exist, and that people can spend real money to buy loot box content and that they have no control as to the selection of items is newsworthy and would previously be unknown to members of RNZ’s audience.
27. The launch of the foundation’s programme “…to combat the negative impacts of some features of games that can lead to problem gambling behaviours…” is also the story’s focus.
28. The point as to whether it is only one country or “…a lot of countries…” that have banned loot boxes is not central to the story and would not misled the audience in its understanding as to the existence or function of loot boxes or the recently launched programme.
29. The complaint was rejected.
30. In its formal response to the Media Council, RNZ maintains that “bans can take a number of forms and be applied in different ways”.
31. It has engaged with Ms Froude, who further states: “The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, China and Japan have banned loot boxes to some extent – since 2019 it has been ever evolving, with court cases and countries changing laws and regulations. In Japan, some specific mechanisms are still prohibited, including multi-level loot boxes that must be completed sequentially to advance to a higher game level. In Brazil, there is ongoing legal debate regarding whether they could be considered gambling under existing laws, which could lead to restrictions or bans if the courts rule in favour of that interpretation…’’
32. On that basis and as a summary of this information, Ms Froude stated that “…a lot of countries…” had banned loot boxes.
33. It is entirely reasonable for RNZ to rely on the comments and views of experts in their field such as Ms Froude. While there may be some dispute between the complainant and Ms Froude as to the exact nature of bans in each of a number of countries, in the end it is not a central point on which this story pivots and would not have misled the audience even if Ms Froude was wrong, which is something neither RNZ nor Ms Froude accepts.
34. RNZ stands by its response to the original complaint.
The Discussion
35. This decision covers the article published online, not the broadcast audio component embedded in the article as that is not in the Media Council’s jurisdiction.
36. The relevant part of Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance is: “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.”
37. This is the crux of the complaint. Were the statements complained about inaccurate?
38. Mr Xiao is an academic specialising in video game law. However, he has not offered any evidence to support his complaint.
39. RNZ relied on expert comment from the Problem Gambling Foundation, which in itself is not unreasonable. The foundation is a respectable authority funded by the Ministry of Health. However, while publishing a single-source article without fact-checking the claims made by an expert will not necessarily breach Council principles, in doing so RNZ took a risk. An interviewer on broadcast radio cannot be expected to check every claim by every expert, but journalists writing an article based on an interview have more time. Fact-checking with multiple sources is always to be encouraged.
40. While it may be reasonable for RNZ to have relied on expert comment in the first instance, once challenged, RNZ had an obligation to promptly investigate and publish any necessary corrections or clarifications.
41. RNZ’s final response that five countries have introduced bans “to some extent’’ and the outline of what is happening in two of those countries, in the council’s view, falls short of fully supporting the statement that ‘‘a lot of countries have banned loot boxes’’.
42. A ban is an outright prohibition as opposed to a partial ban or regulations that police loot boxes. “A lot’’ means a large number, or a great deal and the numbers involved here do not support that.
43. Accordingly, the council believes this aspect of the story is incorrect. Even though it was directly quoted, it was clearly couched as a statement of fact – not an opinion.
44. Whether it was a central part of the article or not is not relevant to Principle (1) because it states publications are bound “at all times’’ to be accurate.
45. In terms of the statement that “many jurisdictions are struggling with the bans”, the complainant does not provide any evidence to support his claim this is incorrect and RNZ has not addressed this. Accordingly, the council is not in a position to consider this aspect of the complaint.
46. Principle (4) Comment and fact is not relevant to this complaint.
47. The relevant part of Principle (12) Corrections says: “A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and will often defuse the complaint.’’ This matter is now more than two months old and should have been promptly corrected or clarified.
Decision: The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance and Principle (12) Corrections by unanimous decision.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff and Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.