Money Laundering on Video Games: Play On or Game Over?
Bad actors are using video game platforms to launder money, but legal perils faced by the gaming companies themselves continue to be relatively minor barring a substantial improvement in their ability to detect such behavior.
November 07, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Criminals are hoping to use video game platforms to score more than just points. By using ill-gotten gains to purchase in-game currency that can then be exchanged for real cash, bad actors have found a way to launder money that is difficult for both gaming providers and the authorities to track.
Fortunately for the companies behind those platforms, the chances that they could be held liable for such illicit activity is slim, even if privacy laws are inadvertently boosting their ability to potentially identify unsavory user behavior.
Christopher Ballod, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, spent an earlier part of his career drafting the anti-money laundering policies that video game companies insert into their terms of service. Those user agreements, coupled with a willingness to shut down accounts when reports of illicit activity are brought to their attention, typically provide sufficient legal protection.
"The can't control everything. That's not possible. So if they've taken those reasonable steps, they've limited their liability through terms of service. There's not a whole lot of cause of action against them," Ballod said.
Even actions brought under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)—which was created to protect the privacy of children under age 13 and has generated some new concerns for gaming companies—are unlikely.
For starters, most platforms establish age limits for setting up accounts. If systems do permit users that would be covered under COPPA, those players are typically making use of a parent's credit card when making in-game financial transactions.
"If the parent has consented by providing a credit card, you don't have a COPPA violation," Ballod said.
Edward McAndrew, a partner at DLA Piper, agreed that it would be difficult for video game companies to be held liable for money laundering taking place on their platforms—unless, of course, such activity became so rampant and well-known that they could be accused of willfully ignoring or aiding and abetting those practices.
But even that argument would be tough to make given how difficult it is for video game companies to positively identify money laundering taking place. For starters, McAndrew indicated that platforms wouldn't have access to the necessary financial records outside of the gaming system.
"They wouldn't see the money flow, essentially," he said.
There are some tell-tale signs, however, such as a user that only puts money into a platform wallet for other accounts to draw from without downloading a single game. But even then, looks can be deceiving.
Ballod gave the hypothetical example of someone using a gaming platform to send money to a family member living overseas. "Believe it or not, I've seen legitimate uses for virtual currency like that."
Still, if gaming platforms are looking for similar bread crumbs to follow on the trail of money launderers, the work they are doing to comply with the forthcoming California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) could pay unexpected dividends.
McAndrew pointed to CCPA mainstays such as the right to be forgotten or a provision granting consumers the ability to request a copy of all the information an organizations has collected about them as factors that will likely force video game platforms to engage in some fairly serious data mapping.
"As a result they will likely have very rich granular data that might be relevant to this question of misuse of the platform for money laundering purposes," he said.
As for any kind of federal or state crackdown on the way that virtual currency is deployed or monitored by video game platforms, that could be a long way off—if ever.
Ballod thinks that regulators have bigger fish to fry in the meantime. "Bitcoin is keeping everybody so busy so busy, this might be lower down on their radar," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250