Hands off the gold: what the UK Property (Digital Assets) Act holds for in-game 'items' and digital accounts

The legal status of digital assets in games has always attracted a degree of scrutiny and debate and was most recently the subject of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network's seven principles on in-game virtual currencies, which was released last March in coordination with the European Commission to promote transparency and fairness in in-game digital content.

Now, following the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 receiving royal assent late last year, interactive entertainment businesses have more clarity on whether digital assets in games are technically considered "property" and, if so, what the implications are for the industry.

Digital assets as personal property

The UK's new digital assets legislation came into force with seemingly little fanfare in December: just over 100 words long, it is deceptively short and, deliberately, does not even provide a definition of "digital asset". Yet the legislation is the culmination of years of evidence gathering, consultation and reporting after the UK government asked the Law Commission to review the law on digital assets.

While the Law Commission's opinion was that the existing law was "sufficiently flexible", it concluded that legislation would still be welcome to ensure that the law, as it continues to develop, is not inappropriately constrained by property law principles that date back to (at least) the 19^th century. The 2025 Act is intended to remove a legal barrier that potentially could have prevented a court from determining that a particular "digital asset" is "property". What does this mean for gamers and the wider interactive entertainment industry?

Ledgers, logins and loot

The legislation raises a crucial questions for the interactive entertainment industry: are my in-game "items" and digital accounts my "property"? The answer, in short and for now, is maybe. The focus of the Law Commission's consultation was on crypto-tokens and related technology, while digital accounts and in-game assets received less attention. Although the commission did express the view that certain digital assets – such as email accounts, some in-game assets and domain names – were unlikely to be a category of property, several respondents to its consultation disagreed.

The Court of Appeal already appeared this January to have taken a different approach. In R v Lakeman, an appeal concerning the theft of gold pieces in a role-playing video game, Old School RuneScape, the court ruled that even though an infinite number of gold pieces could in theory be produced (alongside other arguments), they still constituted "property" and were capable of being "stolen".

The court was keen to stress that the appeal concerned the particular definition of "theft" in English law, which explicitly includes "intangible property" (under the Theft Act 1968), and that a different conclusion may have been reached for other crimes involving property. However, the Court of Appeal also commented on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act directly, noting that it was intended to cover a wide variety of digital assets including in-game wealth. 

Following the ruling in Lakeman, platforms, publishers and developers may ask: if in-game gold can be property that can be stolen, what does this mean for players and users and their digital accounts at both the game and platform level? And can they freely transfer it to another user or pass it on to a relative when they die (in real life)?

Probate for pixels: transfer and inheritance

Although the Property (Digital Assets etc) 2025 Act makes it easier to argue that certain digital assets associated with gaming are property that is capable of being transferred and inherited, there is an important caveat that it does not displace ordinary contract law. The nature and transferability of digital accounts and in‑game items will therefore still remain governed by the controlling agreements between platforms, publishers, developers and users.

For example, a main restriction in the terms of service (ToS) for many major platforms is that digital accounts are personal and non‑transferable. Many services also state that licences under which games and digital content are licensed cannot be assigned, gifted or transferred, including by will. Even if the underlying digital assets have property‑like features, the final position is still likely to be that there is no right to transfer or bequeath the account or game or its contents when these restrictions apply. The 2025 Act only removed a potential barrier under English law, it has not created a positive statutory right to transfer digital accounts or in‑game items in a will (or by other means) where the governing terms prohibit transfer.

Osborne Clarke comment

What should platforms, developers and publishers be considering in light of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act and the Lakeman judgment? Both, arguably, will mean that clear contractual provisions between users and industry stakeholders are more important than ever. The removal of a formal barrier to recognising digital assets as property does not, by itself, transform in‑game items or accounts into freely transferable or inheritable property. However, it has now become increasingly crucial, in practice, to ensure that rights are defined, described and restricted in end‑user licence agreements, platform terms and any supporting documentation.

If the intention is that digital accounts and in‑game content remain strictly personal and non‑transferable, those terms should clearly not only state this but also that there is no proprietary interest or "title" in the items themselves that passes to the user.

At the other end of the spectrum, at least one response to the Law Commission's consultation believed that an anticipated benefit of the new legislation is that it now clearly enables businesses to grant property rights in in-game items to players, potentially as a unique selling point to differentiate its offering from competitors.

In all cases, platforms, developers and publishers should treat the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act as an incentive to review their ToS and consumer‑facing messaging and to ensure that their treatment of digital accounts and in‑game assets is coherent and reflects their commercial intentions.

Hanga Juhasz, a trainee solicitor with Osborne Clarke, contributed to this Insight.