Technology

I don't think they care if it's gambling or not.

They are trying to make the point that they shouldn't be targetted if other obvious known sources of illegal gambling are being actively ignored.

Either they need to go after everyone or no one. Since going after everyone is probably unlikely, targeting Valve for it would be unfair and may be dismissed.

WRT the US, the entire reason Labubus are not legally considered gambling is because there is no wager on the outcome of them. You pay the same amount each time (not wagering based on desired outcomes), and you always get something back. The question of whether a certain level of outcome-value randomization should instead be used as the litmus test for gambling is not one that has been asked or answered legally.

The specific state-by-state definitions of gambling in the US vary, of course, but generally it consists of a wager on a specific outcome of a contest or chance event, under an agreement to receive some value in exchange based on the result.

Changing to a definition where any payment + any random chance of loot = gambling, would open up a lot of very interesting possibilities, like potentially applying to any randomized loot in a video game (unless you start making specific carve-outs). It's important to remember that gambling's definition doesn't only apply to legal gambling, but also illegal gambling, so grey-market resales of game accounts would have to be factored into the consideration of anything in-game's value (i.e. you can't avoid "random loot in a game" being gambling in that case by saying the game can't be legally traded for the item value, because regardless, game accounts can be traded).

In more concrete terms, if I can buy Diablo 2 (pay fixed cost), get a really good item drop (random chance value outcome), and sell my Steam account to someone who wants that item (money in, money out), why would that be different than that same flow with a loot box?