ENJEU-Mineurs study finds higher gambling-risk rates among teens using hybrid games

The ENJEU-Mineurs study, conducted by the French organisation ARPEJ with support from the Autorité Nationale des Jeux, found that adolescents who combine digital games with betting elements and real‑money gambling more often fall into the highest category of gambling-related problems. The research was based on a sample of 5.000 young people aged 15 to 17, and questionnaires were completed between 29 August and 16 September 2025.

Scope and methodology of the study

ARPEJ ran ENJEU-Mineurs with funding and technical support from the Autorité Nationale des Jeux, although the authors retained responsibility for the conclusions. Participants were recruited via household panels with parental consent; researchers applied quotas by sex, age and region and weighted the sample to population data.

The research evaluated six concrete categories grouped as "hybrid digital games": social casino games, free demonstrations of gambling, video games with casino-like activities, loot boxes, fantasy sports and Web3 or play‑to‑earn products. The report emphasises that this does not mean all of those forms are legally considered gambling.

Use and spending in hybrid games

In the full sample, 39% of young people said they had taken part in at least one form of hybrid gaming. The reference period for that participation differs by source: ARPEJ's full report places it in the three months prior to the study, while the Autorité Nationale des Jeux summary presents it over a twelve‑month period. For that reason the 39% figure should not be interpreted without that precision.

Regarding spending, 15.6% of the total sample reported having spent money on hybrid games. Measured only among users of those games, the share of those who had spent rises to 39.9%. Those two figures describe the same variable from different population bases and should not be confused.

Overlap between hybrid games and real‑money gambling

Among those who used hybrid games, 58.8% also took part in real‑money gambling. To measure problem‑gambling severity the researchers used the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory, an instrument designed for adolescents.

Within the group that combined both activities — hybrid games and paid betting — 26% fell into the highest‑severity category according to that questionnaire. Among adolescents who reported only real‑money gambling, the proportion in the highest severity was 3.9%. The report stresses these figures describe percentages within research categories and are not clinical diagnoses of addiction; they also do not mean the 26% is a proportion of the total 5,000 adolescents.

The difference highlights a pointed research question: which factors explain why the combined cohort report more problems. The study does not provide a causal answer.

Order of exposure and limits to causality

Within the subgroup that combined both activities, 67.4% reported they had first played free versions with betting‑like features before taking part in real‑money gambling. That percentage refers only to the combined cohort and was obtained by retrospective recall, with the limitations inherent to self‑reporting.

The study design was not longitudinal; it did not follow young people over time to establish who later developed gambling problems. Therefore the fact that most of the combined cohort recall first trying free games does not prove early exposure caused later paid gambling. The report itself notes that other factors — for example a prior predisposition to betting or the social environment — may explain the coincidence of activities.

Advertising, channels and the Belgian context

Of hybrid‑game users, 68.9% said they had seen messages promoting participation in real‑money gambling. Channels cited include social networks and online games, although the study does not document that every observed message appeared inside a game nor does it identify specific adverts that provoked behaviours.

In Belgium the debate over paid random rewards has legal standing: the Kansspelcommissie concluded in 2018 that paid loot‑box systems fall within the legal definition of gambling when they meet the applicable legal criteria. That classification implies that offers subject to the gaming‑law criteria cannot be organised without the corresponding authorisation. This Belgian legal context remains independent of the French findings, but the ENJEU‑Mineurs report supplies data that inform the debate on which product features merit regulatory and preventive attention. More material on regulation can be consulted at regulation.

Limitations and considerations for prevention

ARPEJ and the Autorité Nationale des Jeux acknowledge limitations: self‑reporting and the use of online panels can over‑represent extreme behaviours. The study does not claim that loot boxes, casino‑like mechanisms or digital products cause gambling problems; it establishes correlations and poses questions for future research.

For prevention in school and family settings, the report recommends distinguishing between the broad category of "gamen" and concrete mechanisms such as paid surprise packs, virtual currencies or activities that mimic a casino. Gambling Club has previously covered the visibility of loot‑box ads and young people’s interactions with those offers; additional information can be found in news.

French figures are not directly extrapolable to Belgium: a national assessment requires local data on participation, spending, exposure to advertising and product availability. ENJEU‑Mineurs offers concrete questions Belgian policy‑makers and prevention officials can incorporate into their own monitoring.

Gonzalo Marín, Operations correspondent for the sector.