[Game & Digital Content Licensing Deep Dive ⑤] Probability-Based Game Items: Is Publishing a Probability Table Enough? — 544 Games Subject to Correction Requests in 200 Days, Disclosure Rules for Games, Websites, Advertising, and Treble Damages

Hello, I'm Jean Ji, a Certified Administrative Agent in Korea.

A game company is preparing to release a new character.

The centerpiece of the update is a new “Premium Summon.”

Players spend paid in-game currency and receive one of several characters at random.

The base probability of obtaining the highest-tier character is 0.3%.

If the character does not appear within the first 50 attempts, the probability begins to increase. On the 100th attempt, a highest-tier character is guaranteed.

The development team has completed the server implementation.

The operations team has prepared a probability table for the website.

The marketing team has also prepared YouTube and social media advertisements.

Just before launch, the person responsible asks:

“We already published the probability table on the website. Are we ready to launch?”

This is where the issue begins.

Since March 22, 2024, disclosure of information concerning probability-based game items has been legally required in Korea.

Within roughly the first 200 days after the system took effect, 544 games were subject to correction requests.

Among the most common violations were failure to disclose probability information and failure to indicate in advertisements that the game contained probability-based items.

Each category accounted for 206 cases.

There were also 60 cases where probability information was disclosed but individual item probabilities were omitted, 17 cases involving undisclosed changing probabilities, and 15 cases where the actual probability differed from the displayed probability.

These figures cover monitoring from March 22 to October 8, 2024. They should not be interpreted as the current annual number of violations in 2026.

One point is clear.

Compliance with Korea’s probability-item rules is not simply a matter of uploading one probability table to a website.

A company must also examine:

what probability mechanics actually exist in the game,

where and how those probabilities are disclosed,

whether required notices appear in advertising,

whether changing probabilities and pity systems are properly explained,

and whether the probabilities shown to users match the probabilities actually implemented on the server.

Since August 1, 2025, Korean law has also expressly provided for civil liability when failure to disclose or false disclosure causes damage to users.

In cases of intentional violations, a court may award damages of up to three times the recognized loss.

In this fifth article, we will use a hypothetical game company, Company A, to examine what qualifies as a probability-based game item, what must be disclosed, how disclosure differs between the game, website, and advertising, how changing probabilities and pity systems should be handled, and what enforcement and liability risks may arise.

---

Game & Digital Content Licensing Deep Dive Series

1. Do game developers and publishers need separate business registrations?
2. When should you apply for a game rating in Korea?
3. Where should you apply for a game rating?
4. Do game updates require a new rating?
5. What must be disclosed when a game includes probability-based items? — This article
6. Who handles Korean regulatory procedures for games developed overseas?
7. What happens when the representative, address, or registered game business details change?
8. Is closing a game business as simple as canceling the business registration?
9. What happens to existing registrations when acquiring a game company or game business?

---

1. A Random Element Does Not Automatically Mean a “Probability-Based Game Item”

Games contain many types of random elements.

A monster may randomly drop an item.

A player may receive one of several rewards through a free attendance event.

Not every random mechanic is automatically treated as a probability-based game item under the Korean Game Industry Promotion Act.

Under Korean law, a probability-based game item generally refers to a game item that a user purchases directly or indirectly for consideration and whose specific type, effect, or performance is determined by chance.

Items obtained by combining paid and free game items may also fall within the statutory scope.

Therefore, the analysis should not stop at:

“Is the result random?”

The company should also ask:

“Did the user directly or indirectly pay for the item, and is the type, performance, or effect of the result determined by chance?”

Company A's Premium Summon uses paid in-game currency.

The character received by the player is determined randomly.

This type of structure therefore requires review under Korea's probability-item disclosure rules.

By contrast, a random reward obtained entirely through gameplay without a separate paid acquisition mechanism should not automatically be treated in the same way.

The name of the mechanic — whether “gacha,” “loot box,” “summon ticket,” or something else — is less important than the actual purchase and reward structure.

---

2. Are Small Game Companies Automatically Exempt from Disclosure Requirements?

Not every game offering probability-based items is subject to identical disclosure obligations.

Under the current Korean Enforcement Decree, the rules generally apply to games provided through information and communications networks that offer probability-based game items.

At the same time, certain exceptions exist.

For example, some small and medium-sized businesses in the video, broadcasting, telecommunications, and information service industries may fall within an exemption where statutory requirements such as average annual sales of KRW 100 million or less over the previous three years are satisfied.

This does not mean that a company can simply conclude:

“We are a startup, so the rules do not apply.”

The law does not determine exemption status merely by the number of employees or whether the game is considered an indie title.

The company’s business classification, revenue, and other statutory conditions must be examined.

If the developer, publisher, and service provider are separate entities, it may also be necessary to examine which company performs which role in the development, distribution, and provision of the game.

Before preparing a probability table, the company should first determine whether the game and the relevant business entity fall within the disclosure regime at all.

---

3. Is “Legendary Tier: 3%” Enough? — Disclosure Depends on the Actual Item Structure

This is one of the most common areas of misunderstanding.

The Korean Enforcement Decree does not treat every probability-based game item as if it operated in the same way.

The information that must be disclosed depends on how the item actually works.

If one probability-based item falls into more than one regulatory category, the company may need to disclose information for each applicable structure.

Standard Character or Equipment Draws

Suppose Company A sells a summon item that produces a random character or item.

The company may need to disclose the supply probability for each relevant type, grade, or performance category.

For example, even if the total probability of obtaining a top-tier character is 3%, the probability for Character A, Character B, and Character C may differ.

The company therefore needs to determine whether individual outcome probabilities must also be disclosed.

This is not a theoretical issue.

During the 2024 monitoring period, 60 games were subject to correction requests because probability information had been disclosed but individual item probabilities were missing.

Accordingly, a disclosure such as:

“SSR rate: 3%”

should not automatically be assumed to be sufficient.

Enhancement and Option Reroll Systems Can Also Require Probability Disclosure

Probability-based items are often associated only with character draws or loot boxes.

But Korean regulations also address structures where an item changes the type, grade, or performance of an existing item on a random basis.

For example, suppose a reroll ticket can randomly produce:

Attack +5%
Attack +10%
Attack +20%

The company may need to examine and disclose the probabilities associated with each possible outcome.

When reviewing a game's monetization model, companies should therefore examine not only loot boxes but also enhancement, reroll, option reset, and similar mechanics.

Random Synthesis Results Must Also Be Reviewed

If several items are combined to create a new item and the result is randomly determined, the probability of each possible synthesis result may also be subject to disclosure.

For example, if three Hero cards are combined and one of several Legendary cards may appear, it may not be enough simply to state:

“A Legendary card can be obtained.”

The probabilities of the individual possible outcomes may also need to be reviewed.

---

4. Changing Probabilities and “Pity” Systems Require Particular Attention

Company A's Premium Summon does not use only a fixed probability.

If the highest-tier character does not appear within the first 50 attempts, the rate begins to increase.

On the 100th attempt, a highest-tier character is guaranteed.

Structures like these are especially easy to disclose incompletely.

If the Probability Changes as the Player Progresses, the Change Must Be Explained

If the supply probability changes depending on the user's purchase history, usage, synthesis activity, or other progress in the game, Korean rules require the company to disclose how the probability changes.

Publishing only the initial 0.3% rate may fail to describe the probability system the player will actually experience.

During the 2024 monitoring period, 17 games were found to have changing probability systems that were not properly disclosed.

If the rate increases after the 50th draw, the company should therefore identify when and how the probability changes and ensure that the disclosure matches the actual logic.

A Guaranteed Reward After a Certain Number of Attempts Must Also Be Reviewed

If a user is guaranteed an item after purchasing, opening, enhancing, or combining items a specified number of times, that condition may also constitute required disclosure information.

If Company A publishes only:

“Highest-tier rate: 0.3%”

but fails to explain:

“A highest-tier character is guaranteed on the 100th attempt,”

the company should review whether its disclosure is complete.

The more complex the probability structure becomes, the less useful a simple percentage table is by itself.

The real question is whether the disclosure explains what a player can actually receive, under what conditions, and how those conditions change over time.

---

5. Is Publishing the Information on the Website Enough? — Advertising Was One of the Most Common Violation Areas

Company A publishes a probability table on its website.

The team assumes the disclosure requirement has been satisfied.

However, Korean law does not focus on the website alone.

Required probability information must be made available through the game and the website in the prescribed manner, while advertisements and promotional materials are subject to separate disclosure requirements.

Within the game, the relevant information should generally be directly available from the purchase, viewing, or use screen for the probability-based item.

Where the amount of information makes direct display difficult, the game may provide a direct connection to the relevant webpage containing the probability information.

On the website, the information must be provided in a form that can be searched as text or numerical data.

The enforcement statistics are particularly important here.

During roughly the first 200 days of the system, 206 games were subject to correction requests because advertising failed to indicate that the game contained probability-based items.

That was the same number as cases involving complete failure to disclose probability information.

This means that even if the development and operations teams prepare the probability table correctly, the company may still face compliance problems if the marketing team omits required notices from YouTube, social media, banner, or other promotional materials.

Probability-item compliance is therefore not an operations-only task.

---

6. If the Website Uses a Single Image for the Probability Table, Additional Review May Be Needed

Some game companies design the entire probability table as a graphic and upload it to the website as one image.

Visually, this may look clean.

Legally, however, the website information is expected to be provided in a format that can be searched as text or numerical data.

Accordingly, if the entire probability table exists only as an image, the company should review whether the format satisfies the regulatory requirement.

This may appear to be a minor design issue.

But it concerns the legal method of disclosure itself.

Monitoring in 2024 also identified cases involving failure to comply with the prescribed disclosure method.

In other words:

“The probability information exists somewhere”

and

“The information has been disclosed in the legally required manner”

are not the same thing.

---

7. Can the Development Team Simply Change the Server Probability?

Suppose Company A decides during an event to increase Character A's probability from 0.3% to 0.5%.

The development team changes the server value immediately.

The operations team updates the website probability table the next day.

The marketing team's event page still shows the old 0.3% rate.

This creates a significant compliance risk.

The actual probability being applied to users no longer matches the disclosed information.

Korean rules require advance disclosure of the details and timing of changes to covered information through the game and the website, subject to limited exceptions where advance posting is genuinely impracticable.

During the 2024 monitoring period, 15 cases were identified in which the displayed probability differed from the actual probability.

Changing a probability is therefore not simply a server-side patch.

The following should move together:

the actual probability logic implemented by the development team,

the in-game disclosure,

the website probability table,

event notices,

and advertising language.

Once the development team's number and the operations team's number differ, a simple internal mistake can become a regulatory issue.

---

8. Enforcement Is Not Limited to Major “Probability Manipulation” Scandals

When companies hear about probability-item regulation, they often think first of major cases involving large publishers and alleged manipulation.

In practice, enforcement can begin with much simpler omissions.

Shortly after the disclosure system took effect, Korean authorities reported that 64 games had already received 105 correction requests by May 8, 2024.

By May 28, the cumulative number of correction requests had increased to 150.

Authorities have subsequently continued to issue corrective recommendations and corrective orders for violations of probability-item disclosure obligations.

Actual Cases Involving Failure to Display Probability Information

Publicly disclosed administrative cases include games that were subject to corrective action because probability information for certain boxes or items was not displayed in the game.

These cases are important because they were not necessarily large-scale manipulation scandals.

The problem was simpler:

the required probability information was not displayed where it was required.

This shows why companies should not assume:

“We are not manipulating probabilities, so we have nothing to worry about.”

Failure to display probability information,

omission of individual item rates,

failure to disclose changing probabilities,

missing advertising notices,

and failure to use the prescribed disclosure method

can all become subjects of regulatory monitoring and corrective action.

---

9. Probability Disclosure Problems May Extend Beyond the Game Industry Promotion Act — The Nexon KRW 11.6 Billion Penalty Case

If probability information differs from the actual game mechanics or important information is withheld from users, the issue may extend beyond the Game Industry Promotion Act.

A prominent example involved Nexon Korea.

In January 2024, the Korea Fair Trade Commission decided to impose corrective measures and an administrative penalty of approximately KRW 11.6 billion in relation to probability-based items in MapleStory and Bubble Fighter.

The case involved allegations that probabilities had been changed in ways unfavorable to consumers without proper disclosure or had been communicated in a misleading manner.

This was not an enforcement action under the probability disclosure provisions that took effect in March 2024.

It was handled under Korean e-commerce and consumer protection law.

Nevertheless, it carries an important practical lesson for game companies.

Incorrect probability disclosure may create legal exposure beyond the game-specific disclosure regime.

If the actual probability differs from what users were told,

if important information affecting the purchasing decision was withheld,

or if event and advertising statements do not match the actual mechanics,

consumer protection issues may also arise.

---

10. Courts Have Also Recognized Refund Liability in a Probability-Item Dispute

Civil liability should also be considered separately.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Korea on November 28, 2024, the dispute involved the sale of paid probability-based items where the game system had been configured so that a particular rare combination of options could not occur, without that fact being properly disclosed to users.

In the lower court proceedings, cancellation of certain purchase contracts on the basis of deception and restitution of payments were recognized.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The case should not be overstated as meaning:

“Every failure to disclose probability information is fraud.”

The legal issues depended on the specific facts of the dispute.

However, the case is still significant because failure to disclose important information about a probability-based item resulted in actual repayment liability to users.

For game companies, this demonstrates that administrative corrective measures are not the only possible consequence.

---

11. Since August 2025, Intentional Violations Can Lead to Damages of Up to Three Times the Recognized Loss

The legal risk increased further in 2025.

Since August 1, 2025, Article 33-2 of the Korean Game Industry Promotion Act has expressly provided for civil liability in connection with probability-based item disclosure.

Where a game business fails to disclose required probability information or makes false disclosures and users suffer damage as a result, civil liability may arise.

The law also places significance on the operator's ability to establish the absence of intent or negligence.

For intentional violations, a court may award damages of up to three times the recognized loss.

Accordingly, as of 2026, probability-item compliance should not be treated as a simple notice-writing task.

A failure can potentially develop into:

administrative corrective action,

consumer protection enforcement,

and civil damages.

---

12. What Should a Game Company Actually Compare Before Launch?

Return to Company A's Premium Summon.

The company should not begin by focusing on how attractively the probability table is designed.

It should begin with the actual game logic.

Step 1. Finalize the Actual Server-Side Probability Logic

The development team should identify:

which characters can appear,

the actual probability of each result,

whether probabilities change after repeated attempts,

whether a pity or guaranteed reward system exists,

and whether the item is limited by period or quantity.

Disclosure should be built from the actual implemented mechanics.

The company should not create marketing language first and then attempt to make the game logic match it later.

Step 2. Review the In-Game Disclosure

The company should confirm whether users can access the required information when purchasing, viewing, or using the probability-based item.

If the game links users to the website, the company should confirm whether the link actually takes users to the relevant probability information in an accessible manner.

Step 3. Compare the Website Probability Table with the Actual Logic

The company should verify that all relevant outcome probabilities are included.

If the system includes changing probabilities or a pity mechanism, those conditions should also be reviewed.

The website should also be checked to ensure the information is provided in the required searchable format.

Step 4. Review Advertising Separately

YouTube advertisements,

social media campaigns,

web banners,

launch trailers,

and event advertisements

should be reviewed independently.

Correct disclosure in the game or on the website does not automatically satisfy the separate requirements applicable to advertising.

Step 5. Make Sure Development, Operations, and Marketing Use the Same Numbers

This is one of the most important practical controls.

The server logic may be managed by the development team.

The website may be maintained by operations.

Advertising may be handled by marketing.

As a result, the actual server rate may be 0.3%, the website may show 0.5%, and an event notice may describe an entirely different condition.

When probability information changes, all departments should use the same values and implementation timing.

Before launch, the company should be able to compare at least the following materials in one review:

Actual server probability logic → Item design specifications → In-game disclosure → Website probability table → Event notices → Advertising materials

The purpose is to determine whether any of these materials describe a different probability system.

Ultimately, probability-item compliance is less about one person writing a probability table and more about ensuring that the actual game logic and every piece of information shown to users are consistent with each other.

---

What Can a Developer Handle Internally, and When Is Professional Review Useful?

If the game uses a simple fixed-probability loot box, the possible outcomes are clearly defined, and the required disclosure locations in the game, website, and advertising are straightforward, a developer or publisher may be able to prepare the disclosure system internally by reviewing the Game Industry Promotion Act, its Enforcement Decree, and official guidance.

The analysis becomes more complicated when the game includes:

• changing probabilities,
• pity systems,
• random synthesis,
• enhancement,
• option rerolls,
• limited-duration or limited-quantity items,
• separate developer and publisher entities,
• or a new probability-based item added to an already released game.

For an existing game, the company may also need to examine whether introducing the new probability mechanic affects other regulatory procedures, including a content modification report or the game's existing rating.

In such cases, within the lawful scope of administrative practice in Korea, a Certified Administrative Agent may assist by comparing the actual probability mechanics, server logic, planned disclosures, and applicable regulations, and by reviewing the required disclosure locations and related administrative procedures.

Professional review does not guarantee how an administrative authority or court will decide a particular matter.

---

Conclusion: The Key Question Is Not Whether You Published a Probability Table

Return to Company A's original question.

“We published the probability table on the website. Is that enough?”

Not necessarily.

The company must first determine whether the mechanic legally qualifies as a probability-based game item.

It must then identify what information must be disclosed based on the actual structure.

For a standard draw, the individual supply probabilities may need to be reviewed.

For enhancement, option rerolls, or synthesis, the possible outcome probabilities may require separate disclosure.

If the rate changes based on player progress, the changing probability structure should be explained.

If a guaranteed reward is provided after a certain number of attempts, the pity condition should also be reviewed.

The required information must also be accessible through the game and provided on the website in the legally prescribed format.

Advertising requires separate review.

If the probability changes, the server logic, in-game display, website, and event information should also be updated consistently.

During the first roughly 200 days after Korea's disclosure regime took effect, 544 games were subject to correction requests.

The issues included not only complete failure to disclose probability information, but also missing advertising notices, omitted individual item rates, undisclosed changing probabilities, and discrepancies between actual and displayed probabilities.

Since August 2025, intentional violations that cause user losses may also expose a game business to damages of up to three times the recognized loss.

Ultimately, the key question is not:

“Did we publish the probability?”

It is:

“Did we accurately disclose the same probability system that is actually implemented in the game, in every place and format where disclosure is required?”

If you are developing, launching, or updating a game for the Korean market and it is unclear what probability information must be disclosed, where it must appear, or whether additional procedures such as a content modification report may be required, you can request a free initial review based on the actual probability mechanics and planned service structure.