French study links hybrid digital games to higher gambling-problem rates in teens

ARPEJ's ENJEU-Mineurs study finds teenagers who both play hybrid digital games and take part in paid gambling are more likely to fall into the highest category for gambling problems, according to a survey of 5,000 youths aged 15 to 17 conducted between 29 August and 16 September 2025. The research, funded and supported by the Autorité Nationale des Jeux, reports that 26% of respondents who combined hybrid games and paid gambling fell into the study's highest severity category on the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory, compared with 3.9% of those who only reported paid gambling.

Scope, methodology and what 'hybrid digital games' covers

The research organisation ARPEJ ran the ENJEU-Mineurs questionnaire online with 5,000 participants aged 15–17. Participants were recruited via family panels with parental consent; quotas for gender, age and region were applied and responses were weighted to national population data. The survey window ran from 29 August to 16 September 2025.

ARPEJ and the Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ) use the term "hybrid digital games" to group six specific categories for the purpose of this study: social casino games, free demos of gambling games, video games that include casino activities, loot boxes, fantasy sports and Web3 or play-to-earn products. The study makes clear this categorisation is research-focused: not all listed products are legally classed as gambling under national law.

Participation and spending figures

ARPEJ reports that 39% of the sample used at least one hybrid game form. The exact reference period differs between sources: the ARPEJ report frames that participation over the three months before the survey, while the ANJ summary refers to twelve months; this discrepancy means the 39% figure needs contextual clarification before being treated as an annual rate.

On spending, 15.6% of the full sample said they had spent money on hybrid games. Restricting the denominator to users of hybrid games, that spending rate rises to 39.9%. The report warns these two percentages describe the same spending from different population bases and should not be conflated.

Combined use and measured problem severity

Among respondents who used hybrid games, 58.8% also reported participation in paid gambling. The study assessed problem severity with the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory. Within the subgroup that combined hybrid games and paid gambling, 26% fell into the highest severity category on that measure. By contrast, 3.9% of respondents who reported only paid gambling fell into the same highest category. The report emphasises these are shares within research categories, not clinical diagnoses, and do not imply that 26% of the entire 5,000 sample had severe gambling disorder.

The authors note the observed association does not establish causation. For example, 67.4% of the combined-use group recalled using free gambling-like games before gambling for money, but that is a retrospective, self-reported sequence that applies only to the combined group and cannot confirm a causal pathway.

Advertising exposure and limitations

ARPEJ found that 68.9% of hybrid-game users reported seeing messages that encouraged participation in paid gambling. Respondents named channels that include social media and online games. The report clarifies it did not attribute each respondent's gambling behaviour to a specific advertisement and did not establish whether every reported message appeared inside a game.

ARPEJ also documents standard limitations of survey research: reliance on self-reporting, potential recall bias when asking about sequence of activities, and the risk that online panel recruitment can over-represent heavier users compared with the general population.

Relevance for Belgium and regulatory context

For Belgium, the study speaks to an established legal debate about paid random-reward mechanics. The Belgian Kansspelcommissie reviewed paid loot-box systems in 2018 and determined they qualify as games of chance when they meet the statutory criteria; such offers cannot be organised without the required authorisation. The French study does not change Belgian law, but it supplies data points relevant to questions about which game features warrant attention, how minors encounter them and what follows from combined exposure to hybrid products and paid gambling.

Gambling Club has previously reported on the visibility of loot-box advertising and related research in Belgium. The ARPEJ report underscores that advertising reach, product features and youth exposure are distinct topics; survey measures of advertising visibility should not be merged with measures of gambling problems as if they provide a single causal narrative.

What the study does and does not prove

ARPEJ and the ANJ-funded work identify a statistical association between combined use of hybrid digital games and paid gambling and a higher measured rate of severe gambling problems within that combined group. The authors explicitly state the findings do not prove that loot boxes, casino mechanics or other digital game formats cause gambling problems. They recommend further research that goes beyond traditional paid-gambling metrics to capture the evolving digital environment in which minors encounter gambling-like mechanisms.