BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint concerning a Morning Report interview with the Problem Gambling Foundation’s Director of Advocacy and Public Health. The interview discussed a new secondary school programme aimed at educating young people about the risk of developing problem gambling habits from playing video games, referring in particular to ‘loot boxes’ in gaming which often cost real money. The interviewee’s statement alleged to be inaccurate was, ‘We know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes…’ which the complainant said was incorrect as only one country – Belgium – has banned loot boxes. The Authority found in the context of the full five-minute interview, which focused on the importance of educating young people about the dangers associated with gaming and risk of developing problem gambling habits, this statement was not a material point of fact.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On Radio New Zealand Ltd’s (RNZ’s) Morning Report on 17 December 2024, co-presenter Corin Dann interviewed the Director of Advocacy and Public Health for the Problem Gambling Foundation (PGF) about a new programme aimed at preventing secondary school students from developing problem gambling habits from gaming, including the dangers of ‘loot boxes’ in some video games. It was introduced by Dann:

A new programme aims to save secondary school students from picking up problem gambling habits from video games. Objects in games like loot boxes allow players to receive a random item, and some require users to pay to access them. [The] Problem Gambling Foundation Director of Advocacy and Public Health... joins us now.

[2]  The interviewee explained loot boxes or ‘prize crates’ are:

…basically just virtual containers holding random items that can be used in the game. So, it could be like a new character outfit or a weapon or some sort of special ability, and often you have to spend real-world money on loot boxes. So, players are essentially buying the chance to win an item that they really want, but of course there’s no guarantee they’ll get it, and the good items are rare. So that’s sort of where the similarity to gambling comes in.

[3]  Dann asked the interviewee about the purpose of the secondary school programme and whether it is ‘just an educational programme’ or whether it aims to have loot boxes ‘stamped out’. The following exchange aired approximately two minutes into the five-minute interview:

Interviewee:   Well, that’s a really interesting question. So, it’s about education, really. So, we’ve partnered with the Drug Foundation’s secondary schools programme, Tūturu, to develop these resources to help them to navigate that grey area between gambling and gaming and help them understand the benefits and harms for themselves. So, we know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes [our emphasis], and in Australia they have put a classification on them to warn parents and to restrict them to young people aged over 15.

Dann:              How would you do that? How do they do that? Because these are presumably in games that are coming in from around the world – is there actually the technology to block them? 

Interviewee:   Well, yes, I think a lot of jurisdictions are struggling with that and it is a difficult thing to do. And I think education and working with young people and having resources for parents, for teachers, and for students is a good way to help them understand the risks associated with them. And of course, you know, gaming is really popular and there’s benefits of gaming as well…

[4]  The interview continued:

Dann:              What is the deeper problem here, that these loot boxes and the early exposure to gambling in a sense – and the dopamine hit, right, it’s the dopamine that people get from that – that this is building, what, neurological pathways at a very young age, which for some people are going to be problematic later in life?

Interviewee:   Absolutely, yeah. It’s the intermittent reward – so, winning what you want only now and again – and we know that that’s a powerful way to get people to repeat a behaviour. So, it’s really quick to learn that, but it’s very hard to unlearn it… It’s psychologically very, very similar to gambling, and we do know that people have moved from gaming to gambling. We also know, and studies have shown us, that people who are experiencing harm from gambling often spend more on loot boxes as well. So, it’s just about understanding the risks and educating young people and parents and teachers about those risks.

Dann:              Do you worry that it is just a... continuation of a sort of normalisation of gambling throughout our lives? And we look at sports betting at the moment, it seems to be far more prolific perhaps than it was in previous generations. Is that a concern?

Interviewee:   Absolutely, and we’re seeing gambling advertising and the targeting of young people around sports betting. We’re seeing games being ‘gamblified’, if you like. It is really concerning, and young people are being exposed to gambling, or simulated gambling, so much more than they ever have been in the past.

The complaint

[5]  Leon Xiao complained to the broadcaster about the radio content, which also featured in a RNZ online article.¹ Xiao made a separate complaint about that article.

[6]  Xiao considered the accuracy standard was breached for the following reasons:

• The interviewee ‘made a mistake as to fact, which materially misled the audience as RNZ did not correct her but instead reproduced her mistake’.
• The interviewee was factually wrong when she said, ‘We know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes.’ Only one country can be said to have banned loot boxes – Belgium. ‘Whilst a number of countries have imposed regulation, these fell significantly short of a ban.’
• ‘To use the word “ban” when much nuance and context is needed to ensure the public is not misinformed is highly irresponsible,’ and ‘[misled] the audience into wrongly believing that many countries have banned loot boxes and that New Zealand may be falling behind, which is untrue.’
• The statement was materially inaccurate as ‘The regulation of loot boxes was a key aspect of the story, and the presenter specifically invited comments on the implementation of the regulations in other countries.’

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  RNZ assessed the original complaint under the New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) principle of ‘Accuracy, Fairness and Balance’, finding no breach and advising Xiao of his right to refer his complaint to the NZMC.²

[8]  When Xiao referred the complaint to the Authority, citing RNZ’s failure to respond within the required timeframe under broadcasting standards, RNZ advised its decision dated 24 January 2025, along with its subsequent correspondence, ‘applied to both the radio interview and the online article’.

[9]  The Authority accepted jurisdiction over the complaint on this basis. RNZ provided the following further comments in relation to the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• RNZ and the interviewee do not accept the statement was incorrect. There may be some dispute between the complainant and the interviewee about ‘the exact nature of bans in each of a number of countries’, but ‘…bans can take a number of forms and be applied in different ways’.
• The thrust of the item was explaining to the public what loot boxes are, the PGF’s concerns with loot boxes, and how the Tūturu programme seeks ‘to educate young people and their families to understand the risks of this feature of online gaming’. Therefore, even if the interviewee was wrong, the ‘one fleeting reference to loot boxes being banned’ was not central to the story and would not have misled the audience ‘in their understanding as to the existence or function of loot boxes or the PGF’s recently launched programme’.
• RNZ is entitled to rely on the comments and views of experts, and ‘there was no way that the interviewer would have known to, or been able to, fact check such a fleeting comment’.
• RNZ also sought and provided further comment from the interviewee in response to Xiao’s referral of the complaint, as follows:
  
  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.
  
  While we do not advocate for loot boxes to be banned, New Zealand is behind many other countries who have already made moves to regulate or prohibit loot boxes and simulated gambling. New Zealand has no regulation or classification guidelines as Australia does now. Alongside that our Gambling Act is [from] 2003 so is no longer fit-for-purpose.

The standard

[10]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[11]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁵

Accuracy

[13]  The standard requires the broadcaster to make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered ‘material’.⁶ This ‘materiality’ threshold is one of the ways the wording of the standard weighs the likelihood of harm against the importance of protecting freedom of expression and not unreasonably restricting broadcasters’ exercise of that right.

[14]  We accept this Morning Report interview was news and current affairs programming. We also accept the statement complained about was expressed as a point of fact, with the interviewee stating unequivocally, ‘We know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes.’

[15]  It is evident from the complainant’s and the broadcaster’s submissions, including comment from the interviewee, the parties hold different understandings of what can reasonably be described as a ‘ban’ of loot boxes. The complainant maintains only Belgium has banned loot boxes outright. The interviewee has, on request for further clarification from RNZ, explained the PGF’s understanding about ‘banned loot boxes to some extent’ in a number of countries and ‘While we do not advocate for loot boxes to be banned, New Zealand is behind many other countries who have already made moves to regulate or prohibit loot boxes and simulated gambling.’ Whether talking about total bans or steps to regulate or restrict loot boxes, the underlying message is broadly consistent with the complainant’s assertion the statement in the interview would have led the audience to believe ‘many countries have banned loot boxes and New Zealand may be falling behind’.

[16]  Regardless, we do not consider the statement complained about was material in the context of the full interview or would have significantly affected listeners’ understanding overall. On this basis we have found no breach of the accuracy standard.⁷

[17]  The interview was framed by Dann in the introduction as being about a new secondary school programme aiming to ‘save secondary school students from picking up problem gambling habits from video games’. The interviewee clearly stated the purpose of the programme was educational and designed to help secondary school students ‘navigate that grey area between gambling and gaming and help them understand the benefits and harms for themselves’. We agree with RNZ the interviewee’s statement about bans in other countries was fleeting in this context, with the full interview lasting five minutes and only minimal surrounding discussion touching on loot box regulation.

[18]  While Dann raised the question of whether the secondary schools programme was ‘just about education’ or whether it aimed to have loot boxes ‘stamped out’, which could be taken as inviting the interviewee’s comment on possible regulation, the overall impact of the interview, in our view, was to emphasise the importance of educating young people about the dangers and risks associated with gaming and developing problem gambling habits. After acknowledging jurisdictions were ‘struggling’ with blocking loot boxes and how it is ‘a difficult thing to do’, the interviewee quickly returned to emphasising the importance of ‘education and working with young people and having resources for parents, for teachers, and for students is a good way to help them understand the risks associated with them. And of course, you know, gaming is really popular and there’s benefits of gaming as well…’ The remainder of the interview concerned ‘the deeper problem’ of how dopamine hits or intermittent rewards from gambling or gaming affect neurological pathways, potentially leading to problem gambling habits, and the ‘continuation of the normalisation of gambling throughout our lives’.

[19]  The interview was not framed or presented as a discussion about the merits of banning or regulating loot boxes, and we do not consider the interviewee’s brief reference to other countries having banned them would have significantly affected listeners’ understanding of the aim of the programme.

[20]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

[21]  Finally, we acknowledge the complainant’s dissatisfaction with RNZ’s handling of the complaint under the broadcasting standards, as distinct from the NZMC principles covering the corresponding written RNZ online article. Xiao was clear the initial complaint was about the ‘radio content’. Under s5 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 broadcasters are required to have a proper procedure for dealing ‘with complaints relating to broadcasts’. Section 7(2) requires a broadcaster to notify the complainant in writing of the decision and s7(3) requires complainants be notified of their right of referral to the Authority. We acknowledge Xiao’s concerns, noting RNZ only responded to Xiao’s complaint about the radio broadcast when contacted by the Authority. While we acknowledge the overlap in responding to complaints about the same, or similar, content on different platforms, we remind RNZ to be clear in its decisions, for the benefit of complainants and to meet its statutory obligations, including the standards being applied to the content and the complainant’s right of referral to the Authority.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
9 June 2025  

 
Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Xiao’s original complaint – 3 January 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 24 January 2025

3  Xiao’s referral to the Authority and further comments – 3 - 22 February 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 24 March 2025

5  Xiao’s final comments – 24 March 2025

6  RNZ’s final comments – 27 March 2025

7  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 2 May 2025

¹ “Programme launched to combat impacts of gambling-like games” RNZ (online ed, 18 December 2024)
² NZMC subsequently upheld Xiao’s complaint finding breaches of its ‘Accuracy, Fairness and Balance’, and ‘Corrections’ principles in a decision issued 17 March 2025 <mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/leon-y-xiao-against-radio-new-zealand> The online article has been annotated and edited accordingly (noted at the top of the article), RNZ has published a summary of the NZMC ruling and linked the full NZMC decision.
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 6.2
⁷ We note in this respect the ‘materiality’ test in the broadcasting standard for accuracy differs from the NZMC principle of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance which the NZMC found was breached by the relevant statement in the corresponding online article. Responding to RNZ’s argument the statement was not ‘central to the story’, NZMC noted the principle requires accuracy at all times.