Bill C-34 — Canada’s proposed legislation to protect children from the harms of social media — is seeking to bar anyone under the age of 16 from holding accounts on regulated social media platforms. 

But while it strives to introduce strong and unprecedented measures in Canada for regulating online safety, the Safe Social Media Act is unclear about one of the most intensively designed products in children’s lives: video games. 

The proposed legislation has a significant gap. On one hand, a 14-year-old is prohibited from opening an Instagram account. On the other hand, they can legally open a potentially addictive mobile game, spend their allowance on micro-purchases designed as a randomized pull for a rare character, and game uncontrollably. In doing so, they would not trigger any of the protections the legislation is supposed to provide.

As researchers in Canada and globally are increasingly linking young people’s gaming habits to serious gambling problems later in life, Parliament must maximize the ability of any new tools — and laws — to protect young people.

Bill C-34 leaves room to regulate more than social media

Bill C-34 received first reading in the House of Commons on June 10. Once C-34 receives second reading, a parliamentary committee will hear input from experts and witnesses, study the bill and report back to the Commons with recommendations. MPs can then propose further amendments which would be debated before C-34 gets a third (and final) reading in Parliament, which it must pass to become law. There is no timeline for when this might occur.

When it reaches the committee stage, the Safe Social Media Act should do two things: 

• clearly state whether features that promote problematic engagement built into video games fall within the bill’s mandate; and 
• empower the proposed new Digital Safety Commission to assess those features, publicly report its findings and recommend that relevant game services be regulated.

The Safe Social Media Act is Ottawa’s second attempt to regulate the digital environments in which young Canadians spend their time. Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, died on the order paper in January 2025 when Parliament was prorogued in advance of an election. 

So far, debate around C-34 has largely focused on issues like a minimum age of 16 for social media account holders, regulating access to AI chatbots, and the bill’s implications on freedom of expression. But the video game question remains unanswered. 

Bill C-34’s very premise is itself a milestone because it recognizes that the design of digital products used by children is a legitimate matter of public safety and thus subject to regulation — a point that some policymakers have long been reluctant to address. The bill would impose a duty to protect children, require “safety-focused and age-appropriate design features,” oblige operators to assess the risks their services create, and establish the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to write and enforce the details.

Once government accepts that digital design can harm children, the next question is how other products built on similar techniques will also be examined through the same lens. 

Video games are designed to keep players engaged

Video games are an obvious place to start. For most players, these activities are a source of social connection, creativity and enjoyment. But over the past 15 years, the industry has moved from selling products to selling engagement. 

Modern games employ a wide variety of features designed for user retention. Researchers were able to categorize these features into two major clusters — those that promote gaming realism using features like avatars and sound; and gambling-like features. The latter can include time-limited events like daily rewards, streaks and randomized paid purchases. These features, which are readily available to children, warrant closer attention. 

The World Health Organization describes this gaming disorder as being characterized by users’ lack of self-control and significant functional impairment. Most people who play games do not develop gaming disorder, but concern remains for the many vulnerable gamers for whom these design features become most harmful. 

‘Loot boxes’ are one of the clearest examples of a gambling-like feature in video games. Players can spend real money for a “reward” that is determined by chance and is worth an uncertain amount. A widely cited study published in the journal Addiction found that loot boxes are used in nearly 60 per cent of top-grossing mobile games — more than 90 per cent of which carry an age rating suitable for children.

Researchers have repeatedly found the same pattern across different countries and age groups: kids who spend on loot boxes are more likely to develop signs of problem gambling. More recent work, including a study of Canadian young adults led at the University of British Columbia, found that loot box use in young adults can predict gambling initiation.  

Give the Digital Safety Commission the tools it needs

That returns us to what Parliament can do.

Once C-34 goes before a House of Commons committee is when lawmakers must ensure it has specific parameters needed to protect users. While the bill does cite three kinds of “regulated services” — social media, chatbots, and a third bucket of “other online services” to be identified later — the government needs to make certain that the concerning features which promote problematic engagement, such as monetization mechanics in games, are captured in that third bucket.

Beyond that, the proposed Digital Safety Commission is itself worth arguing for. It would be an independent body mandated to monitor design-driven risks across digital products — games included — and also to give independent researchers legislated access to users’ behavioural data that gaming companies hold.

In terms of awareness and transparency, having added oversight from a dedicated body would put Canadian authorities in a much better position than relying on statute alone. Most of what we know about these mechanics still comes from researchers themselves playing the games, an approach that would have difficulty keeping pace with constant changes in technology and market demands. A Digital Safety Commission could help close that gap by monitoring emerging design practices and developing disclosure requirements that clearly identify potentially problematic features. Such measures would give parents more useful information when deciding which games are appropriate for their children.  

Children’s privacy is now critical infrastructure in the AI era

Ottawa’s AI strategy is built to inspire trust, not protect Canadians

Without such oversight, courts are left to test this issue themselves. In June, the B.C. Court of Appeal allowed a class action to proceed against the California-based company Electronic Arts (recently sold to a group led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund) over loot boxes that are in many of its games. The lawsuit accuses Electronic Arts of engaging in “deceptive and unconscionable practices” in how it promoted, structured and sold loot boxes, though the court stopped short of ruling the game mechanic as illegal gambling. 

Other jurisdictions are also in the process of addressing this issue. For instance the European Union is currently drafting rules on randomized game monetization. With no common EU-wide standard, courts there have been drawing those boundaries case by case, using older consumer law that predates loot boxes. 

Here in Canada, Parliament should be encouraged to flag the issue of problematic video game features, and appoint a regulator empowered to oversee the sector as alarming research findings continue to accumulate. 

After all of the effort and urgency that Parliament has been devoting to Bill C-34, and months of research and debate, the last thing Ottawa can afford to do is overlook the dangers that unregulated video game use by minors poses to safety and wellbeing in Canada.