Legal Researcher Leon Xiao: Trading Card Packs Meet Gambling Definitions but Evade Enforcement
Leon Xiao states card packs fit gambling definitions via monetary risk on random results but escape regulation due to lax enforcement. His Hong Kong study of 50 packs found 80% lacked probability disclosures entirely. Stronger action beyond transparency is required, especially to protect children.
SCCG Take — Regulators must apply existing gambling statutes uniformly to collectibles showing clear harm signals rather than deferring to outdated categorizations.
Physical trading card packs satisfy common definitions of gambling by involving money risked on random outcomes with uncertain value, yet regulators fail to treat them as such. Leon Y. Xiao, Assistant Professor at City University of Hong Kong and Visiting Research Fellow at King’s College London, made that assessment in a Q&A with Gambling Insider. His study of 50 physical trading card game and collectible sports card packs in Hong Kong, published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, underscores widespread transparency failures.
Study Exposes Gaps in Probability Information
80% of the packs carried no probability disclosures on packaging. The remaining 20% supplied incomplete details that were often difficult to locate or potentially misleading. No pack disclosed the odds for every individual card. Xiao observed that both common-sense and legal standards—risking money on chance events for prizes with real-world monetary value—are met by these products, including high-value chase cards, premium editions, card breaks and repacks. Such items are labeled “gambling-like” solely because enforcement is absent.
Enforcement Must Extend Beyond Disclosures
Probability disclosures represent a baseline already likely required by consumer laws but fall short of addressing core harms. Xiao stressed that stronger regulatory action is needed immediately, above all to shield children who can readily purchase the products. Card breaks and repacks amplify risks through larger sums at stake and potential fraud over whether claimed rare cards are actually included. The offering company’s identity does not alter the analysis: any illegal gambling activity warrants prosecution. The existing legal boundary—whether prizes hold transferable monetary value—remains practical yet is not applied consistently.
This coverage follows the Gambling Insider interview without extending beyond its reported content.
Reporting: Gambling Insider
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →