Virtual Space and In-Game Property: Aspects of Legal Regulation

This article examines the legal regime of virtual in-game property as a distinctive phenomenon of the digital environment, characterized by specific attributes and legal implications that differentiate it from traditional forms of property. The study’s especially relevant because of the absence of clear statutory regulation governing the transfer, exchange, and alienation of virtual in-game assets and the mechanisms for their legal protection amid the rapid expansion of the gaming industry in digitally mediated markets. This regulatory gap generates legal uncertainty and exposes the legitimate interests of millions of users to heightened risks. The purpose of the research is to identify the core characteristics of virtual in-game property and to determine adequate legal instruments for its protection by analyzing both international and domestic approaches to regulating this phenomenon. The methodology combines: comparative analysis of existing regulatory concepts addressing virtual in-game property; a systematic review of end-user license agreements and terms of service of leading gaming platforms; a critical assessment of the doctrinal and practical appropriateness of applying traditional categories such as “property” and “ownership” to digital environments; and a historical analysis of the evolution of approaches to digital assets. The principal findings define virtual in-game property through a set of cumulative features: economic value, functional transferability and potential alienability vis-à-vis third parties, and existence exclusively within the boundaries of a virtual game space. The analysis also delineates the jurisdictional contours of virtual game worlds and identifies mechanisms for maintaining a balance between the lawful interests of developers and ordinary users. Additionally, the author draws a historical parallel between developers’ “digital power” and the common-law concept of real estate, highlighting structural similarities in control over access, use, and exclusion. The study differentiates the developers’ intellectual creations embodied in digital objects from users’ entitlements, detailing the possession and use models embedded in contractual user agreements. The article concludes by proposing key definitions shaping the legal regime of virtual in-game property and offering practical recommendations for improving law enforcement practice and legislative policy, aimed at ensuring effective protection of player-consumers’ rights while accounting for the unique nature of virtual in-game assets and their increasing economic significance.

1. Arkhipov, V. V. (2019a). Komp’yuternyye igry, «magicheskiy krug» i smyslovyye predely prava [Computer games, “magic circle” and semantic limits of law]. International Journal of Cultural Research, (1), 73–87.

2. Arkhipov, V. V. (2019b). Semanticheskiye predely prava v usloviyakh medial’nogo povorota: Teoretiko-pravovaya interpretatsiya [Semantic limits of law in the context of the medial turn: A theoretical and legal interpretation] [Doctoral dissertation, St. Petersburg State University]. http://hdl.handle.net/11701/16362

3. Bentham, J. (1998). Vvedeniye v osnovaniya nravstvennosti i zakonodatel’stva [An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation] (trans. by B. G. Kapustin). ROSSPEN.

4. Boyd, S. G., Pyne, B., & Kane, S. F. (2018). Video game law: Everything you need to know about legal and business issues in the game industry. A K Peters/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429469992

5. Braginsky, M. I., & Vitryansky, V. V. (2011). Dogovornoye pravo. Kniga tret’ya: Dogovory o vypolnenii rabot i okazanii uslug [Contract law. Book three: Contracts for work and services]. Statut.

6. Castronova, E. (2004). The right to play. New York Law School Law Review, 49(1), 185–210.

7. Doiev, A. M. (2023). O prirode virtual’nykh “veshchey” kak ob’yektov veshchnykh prav [On the concepts of virtual “things” and “thing-ness”]. Digital Law Journal, 4(3), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2023-4-3-8-15

8. Fairfield, J. (2005). Virtual property. Boston University Law Review, 85, 1047–1102.

9. Fairfield, J. (2009). The magic circle. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 11(4), 823–840.

10. Graf, D. V. (2024). Balans interesov pol’zovateley, izdateley i razrabotchikov pri zakrytii videoigr v svete novoy yevropeyskoy initsiativy [Balancing the interests of users, publishers and developers in cases of shutdown of video games: A new European initiative]. Digital Law Journal, 5(2), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-2-24-39

11. Hegel, G. W. F. (2021). Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law] (trans. by B.G. Stolpner). Yurait.

12. Huizinga, J. (1997). Homo ludens; Stat’i po istorii kul’tury [Homo ludens: Articles on the history of culture] (trans. & ed. by D.V. Silvestrov). Progress-Traditsiya.

13. Karapetov, A. G., & Savelyev, A. I. (2012). Svoboda dogovora i yeye predely [Freedom of contract and its limits] (Vol. 1). Statut.

14. Kazakova, N. Yu. (2017). Geym-dizayn (Khudozhestvenno-proyektnyy podkhod k sozdaniyu tsifrovoy igrovoy sredy) [Game design (Artistic and project-based approach to creating a digital game environment)] (Doctoral dissertation abstract, Kosygin Russian State University).

15. Klevjer, R. (2022). What is the avatar?: Fiction and embodiment in avatar-based singleplayer computer games. (Revised and commented ed.). Transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839445792

16. Lastowka, F. G., & Hunter, D. (2004). The laws of the virtual worlds. California Law Review, 92(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481444

17. Lefebvre, B. (2003). Le contrat d’adhésion [The contract of adhesion]. Revue du notariat, 105(2), 439–490.

18. Locke, J. (2021). The second treatise of government. Vtoroy traktat o pravlenii [Second treatise of government] (Bilingual ed.). Yurait.

19. Mill, J. S. (1900). Utilitarianizm. O svobode [Utilitarianism. On liberty] (trans. by A. N. Nevedomsky, 3rd ed.). I. P. Perevoznikov.

20. Novoselova, L., Gabov, A., Savelyev, A., Genkin, A., Sarbash, S., Asoskov, A., Semenov, A., Yankovsky, R., Zhuravlev, A., Tolkachev, A., Kamelkova, A., Uspensky, M., Krupenin, R., Kisly, V., Zhuzhzhalov, M., Popov, V., & Agranovskaya, M. (2019). Tsifrovyye prava kak novyy ob”yekt grazhdanskogo prava [Digital rights as a new object of civil law]. Zakon, (5), 31–54.

21. Pagov, A. Zh. (2025). Videigry i igrovye mekhaniki: pravovoy rezhim i okhrana [Video games and game mechanics: Legal regime and protection]. Pravovaya Informatika, 1, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.24412/1994-1404-2025-1-153-162

22. Palka, P. (2017). Virtual property: Towards a general theory [Doctoral dissertation, European University Institute]. https://doi.org/10.2870/700083

23. Perepyolkina, Ya. A. (2020). Virtual’noye igrovoye imushchestvo: Perspektivy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Virtual game property: Prospects for legal regulation]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (3), 45–59.

24. Rozhkova, M. A. (2021). Kategorii “tsifrovoye pravo”, “tsifrovyye prava” i “tsifrovaya valyuta” v rossiyskom prave [The categories of “digital law”, “digital rights”, and “digital currency” in Russian law]. In: M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Pravo cifrovoj ekonomiki—2021: Ezhegodnik-antologiya [Law of the digital economy—2021: A yearbook-anthology] (pp. 10–68). Statut.

25. Rybalov, A. O. (2007). Problemy klassifikatsii grazhdanskikh pravootnosheniy [Problems of classification of civil legal relations] [PhD Thesis, St. Petersburg State University].

26. Rybalov, A. O. (2017). Pravo sobstvennosti (kommentariy k st. 209 GK RF) [Property law (commentary on Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)]. M-Logos.

27. Savelyev, A. I. (2014). Pravovaya priroda virtual’nykh ob”yektov, priobretayemykh za real’nyye den’gi v mnigopol’zovatel’skikh igrakh [The legal nature of virtual objects purchased for real money in multiplayer games]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, (1), 127–150.

28. Sklovsky, K. I. (2023). Sobstvennost’ v grazhdanskom prave [Property in civil law] (6th ed.). Statut.

29. Shevtsov, K. P. (2018). Komp’yuternye igry kak predmet filosofskogo analiza [Computer games as a subject of philosophical analysis]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Filosofiya i Konfliktologiya, (1), 98–103.

30. Shirvindt, A. M. (2014). Ogranicheniye svobody dogovora v tselyakh zashchity prav potrebiteley v rossiyskom i yevropeyskom chastnom prave [Limitation of freedom of contract for consumer protection in Russian and European private law] (ed. by A.L. Makovsky). Statut.

31. Stepanov, S. A. (ed.). (2016). Grazhdanskoye pravo: Uchebnik [Civil law: Textbook] (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Prospekt.

32. Tebenkova, V. N. (2024). Mezhdunarodno-pravovyye printsipy ustanovleniya yurisdiktsii gosudarstv v kiberprostranstve [International legal principles of establishing state jurisdiction in cyberspace]. Actual Problems of Russian Law, (5), 177–191.

33. Martyanova, E. Yu. (2020). Dogovory, oposreduyushchie ispol’zovaniye ob’yektov onlayn-igr [Contracts mediating the use of online game objects]. In: M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Pravo Cifrovoj ekonomiki—2020: Ezhegodnik-antologiya [Law of the digital economy—2020: A yearbook-anthology] (pp. 164–184). Statut.