**UK Court of Appeals' Judgment on RuneScape's Gold Theft: A Significant Ruling for the Games Industry**

The UK Court of Appeal has made a landmark ruling in the case of Andrew Lakeman, a former Jagex content developer accused of stealing in-game currency from RuneScape players. The court's decision has significant implications for the games industry, as it establishes that unauthorized removal of virtual assets can be considered criminal theft.

Lakeman had initially been acquitted on the grounds that the in-game currency did not meet the definition of "stoppable property" under the UK's Theft Act. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, ruling that the gold pieces within RuneScape can indeed be classed as property and subject to the offence of theft.

According to Anna Poulter-Jones, a Senior Associate at specialist games lawyers Sheridans, "rivalrous" is a key concept in understanding why virtual assets like in-game currency are considered property. "This means that if one person takes or spends something, the original owner loses it," she explains. "In other words, virtual assets behave more like personal property with rights attached to them, rather than just 'pure information' existing only in a person's head."

The Court of Appeal judges disagreed with the original decision on rivalrousness, arguing that the gold pieces were not simply "like any other" and had real-world value. Poulter-Jones notes that this ruling is significant for several reasons:

• **Civil law implications**: While the case deals with a criminal law matter under the Theft Act 1968, the court draws on civil law criteria to determine whether in-game virtual items amount to "property". This means the decision has relevance beyond just a criminal context.
• **Real-world value of virtual currency**: The fact that the gold pieces were traded for money outside of the game was a key factor in the court's determination. This established that the coins had real-world value, despite Jagex's EULA stating otherwise.

Poulter-Jones suggests that this ruling could have implications for third-party-operated marketplaces that allow players to trade virtual items outside of the game. "If unsanctioned trading can now undermine the position put forward in a game's EULA, we may start to see a crackdown on these sorts of sites," she warns.

The fallout from this ruling could also lead to regulators scrutinizing in-game monetization practices even when only in-game currency is used. Poulter-Jones notes that policymakers are already showing increased interest in regulating virtual currencies and loot boxes, citing the CPC Principles as a non-binding but clear insight into EU regulators' intentions.

As the regulatory winds begin to shift, the industry must be savvy about how it adapts. According to Poulter-Jones, "this case has already effectively provided a big red arrow pointing out the way we can expect policymakers to be moving." The Court of Appeal's judgment on RuneScape's gold theft is a significant milestone in the ongoing conversation around games regulation, and one that the industry cannot afford to ignore.