More than half of Danish children aged 11 to 16 have bought loot boxes in digital games, and a third immediately want to buy more, according to a new report from UNICEF Denmark and the Center for Digital Pædagogik. The organisations are now calling for tighter regulation of gambling-like mechanics in games aimed at children.
The findings come from a survey of 1,785 children conducted in December 2025. The data shows that 52 percent have spent money on loot boxes, which are digital purchases where players pay for a random reward without knowing what they will get. One in three says they buy them to chase a big prize. Another third reports an immediate urge to open or buy another box right after purchasing one.
As reported by UNICEF Denmark, the random reward structure closely resembles gambling. But while it is illegal for anyone under 18 to gamble for money in Denmark, offering loot boxes to children is not against the law. That regulatory gap sits at the centre of the problem.
A Line Denmark Has Struggled to Draw
Danish gambling law requires three elements: real money, chance, and something with economic value. Loot boxes involve the first two but often sidestep the third, because the virtual items inside are technically owned by the game company and cannot be officially cashed out. That keeps most loot boxes outside Spillemyndigheden’s remit, even when they feel like gambling to the children buying them.
The distinction matters. Earlier this year, Skatteministeriet reported that 32,000 young people had gambled online illegally. That figure points to a larger pattern: children already move between gaming environments and real money gambling with little friction. When game mechanics train them to expect random rewards in exchange for payment, the barrier becomes thinner still.
Harm Beyond the Loot Box
A separate Danish study found that half of children and teens who game have spent real money on virtual currency, and a quarter have bought loot boxes. The normalisation of spending inside games is not just about individual purchases. It shapes how children learn to think about money, risk, and reward.
The UNICEF report also looked at Discord, the chat platform many gamers use. Half of the children surveyed said they had experienced something unpleasant there. A third reported hostile language, while nearly one in four faced unwanted contact or hateful content. Others saw violent images, fraud attempts, or unsolicited intimate photos. Only a third told an adult about it.
That silence is revealing. According to DPU research, half of the 16 and 17 year olds with risky gambling behaviour felt depressed, and half said they could not talk to their parents about it. The lack of conversation means the problem often goes unnoticed until it becomes serious.
Parents in the Dark
Danske Bank’s research found that many Danish parents simply do not understand the gambling elements built into the games their children play. That ignorance is not wilful. The design is intentionally opaque. Virtual currencies obscure real cost, random rewards hide the odds, and screen time debates rarely address what happens during that time.
I have watched this play out in Denmark for years. The debate about children and technology often focuses on duration rather than content. We talk about how long kids spend online but not what they are being sold while they are there. That misses the point.
Discord as Social Infrastructure
The UNICEF report also offers a more nuanced picture. Among Discord users, nearly half said the platform helped them stay in touch with friends. More than a third found it easier to talk to people they do not see often, and almost a third made new friends there. For many children, these platforms are not just entertainment. They are social infrastructure.
That duality is what makes policy hard. The same spaces where children build friendships also expose them to commercial pressure, inappropriate content, and social risks adults may not see. Anni Marquard, head of the Center for Digital Pædagogik, argues that adults need to show genuine curiosity about those digital friendships if they want children to open up when something goes wrong.
Regulation or Education
UNICEF Denmark and the Center for Digital Pædagogik are calling for new rules. They argue that gaming should be shaped by play and community, not by mechanics designed to keep children clicking and spending. The current system leaves that decision to game publishers, who have clear financial incentives to do the opposite.
The counterargument is that gambling law is too blunt a tool for game monetisation. Spillemyndigheden has said most loot boxes fall outside its mandate. Industry voices point to existing parental controls and age ratings, though those tools rely on parents understanding what they are controlling in the first place.
The question is not whether loot boxes and similar mechanics exist. They do, and Danish children encounter them constantly. The question is whether Denmark will update its legal framework to match that reality, or continue to treat gambling-like design as something other than gambling simply because it does not meet a narrow technical definition written before these business models existed.
