Specialist media lawyer outlines why UK Court of Appeals’ judgment on RuneScape’s Gold theft is so “significant for the games industry”

The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that unauthorized removal of RuneScape’s in-game currency can be classed as criminal theft.

Initially, the defence of Andrew Lakeman – a former Jagex content developer who allegedly accessed player accounts either by “hacking and/or using credentials of members of the account recovery team” and stole Gold, which he later sold for Bitcoin – had successfully convinced the court that, as in-game currency didn’t meet the definition of what was stealable property under the UK’s Theft Act, he consequently couldn’t be prosecuted for doing so.

Critically, at the time, the original judge also agreed with the defence that RuneScape’s Gold wasn’t ‘rivalrous,’ but now, at the Court of Appeal, this interpretation has been overturned. As Sheridans’ Anna Poulter-Jones explains to GamesIndustry.biz, ‘rivalrous’ is a term which essentially means if one person takes or spends something, the original owner loses it.

“This makes a virtual asset behave more like personal property that benefits from private law rights, rather than just ‘pure information’ which only exists in a person’s head like knowledge,” Poulter-Jones says. “There is value in that; in possessing property with rights attached to it. The question then is whether this leaves the door open for others to try and argue that even an in-game item existing in a closed loop actually has a real-world value which opens that loop?”

“In the Court’s determination, the gold pieces had real-world value, despite the fact that RuneScape’s EULA states the contrary”

Now, in the Court of Appeal, a judge has overturned the original decision, concluding that the theft of in-game currency could be legally classified as criminal theft. It’s a huge decision that could have significant repercussions for the games industry.

“We differ from the Judge in his reasoning for reaching the contrary conclusion on rivalrousness. The two reasons which the Judge gave in his ruling do not, with respect, bear analysis,” the Judge wrote.

“The first was that ‘one gold piece is like any other, and their supply is infinite.’ This does not, however, distinguish them from many other forms of rivalrous property. One paper clip from a given manufacturer is like any other; and the manufacture and supply of them infinite, in the sense that is not capped at any finite number. Yet each paper clip constitutes property. The same is equally true of gold pieces.”

Property line

“This Court of Appeal judgment is significant for the games industry for a number of reasons,” Poulton-Jones, a Senior Associate at specialist games lawyers, Sheridans, explains.

“First, it is important to note that, while this case deals with a criminal law matter under the Theft Act 1968, in the judgment the Court draws on a number of civil law criteria to determine whether in-game virtual items amount to ‘property.’ So straight off the bat, we have a case that is relevant beyond just a criminal, theft-specific context.

“Secondly, in the Court’s determination that the gold pieces were ‘property,’ the fact that the coins are traded for money outside of the game was significant. This showed that the gold pieces had real-world value, despite the fact that RuneScape’s EULA states the contrary.”

As Poulton-Jones explains, Jagex’s EULA states that virtual currency “does not have any inherent or real-world monetary value,” and stresses that virtual currency is not the player’s “own private property.” But this could now be challenged.

“In both respects, the Court found that the opposite was the case: the gold coins did have real-world value, and did constitute property,” she added.

Fallout

As a result, Poulton-Jones suggests this could have implications for third-party-operated marketplaces that allow players to trade virtual items outside the game. Up until now, they’ve existed in a grey space of being “neither condoned nor condemned by the studio whose game items they trade in (most likely because they create a community around the game and ultimately drive traffic back into it).”

“But if this unsanctioned trading could now undermine the position put forward in a game’s EULA, we may start to see a crackdown on these sorts of sites,” she added.

“Unsanctioned trading could now undermine EULAs, and we may start to see a crackdown on third-party ‘grey markets'”

“When we hear the words ‘real-world value’ in the context of in-game items, the policy bells naturally start ringing. Those words have a tendency to bring into play rules and laws around consumer protection, gambling, online safety, advertising, and even financial regulation might get some airtime. This is especially so in the wake of the CPC Principles last year (which were non-binding but gave us a clear insight into EU regulators’ intentions for in-game virtual currencies), and the renewed and increasing scrutiny into loot boxes and in-app purchases.”

The fallout of this could see some parties attempt to bolster rights to virtual items in the real world, and could result in regulators cracking down on in-game monetization even when only in-game currency is used.

“So even while the lawyers will inevitably battle it out and quibble in legalese over the extent to which this case applies in other fact-specific scenarios, this case has already effectively provided a big red arrow pointing out the way we can expect policymakers to be moving,” Poulton-Jones concludes.

“And for me, this is really at the heart of the implications of this case for the industry: insights into the way we can expect the regulatory winds to blow. We’re only in January, and 2026 is already delivering on its promise of being the year when games regulation bites. For the industry to navigate this, we need to be savvy about how we expect it to bite, and what practical steps we can take to adjust accordingly.”

Now the Court of Appeal has answered the question of whether gold pieces within RuneScape can be classed as property and be the subject of the offence of theft, the case against the defendant can now proceed.