Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 28, 2022, 21:49:
I'd like to know what portion of the legal definition they don't meet...
This wasn't hard information to find. In the linked article it says,
In 2018, a five-month inquiry into loot boxes by the Environment and Communications Reference Committee concluded they met all the psychological criteria for gambling but not the legal definition, and called for further research into the potential gambling-related harms of loot boxes.
Click on the link, and 5 sentences in it explains:
While it was conclusive that loot boxes meet the five psychological criteria for gambling, unless the contents can be monetised for real-world value, they do not meet the legal definition under Australian law.
That doesn't seem like an absurd or arbitrary threshold to me. If real-world money isn't involved then you're not jumping on games for every use of a random number generator.