Video Game Age Rating, Age Assurance, and Identity Verification in Mainland China and Beyond: Policy Implementation Insights from Popular iPhone Games

This study examines how major technology companies implement age rating, age assurance, and identity verification procedures for video games, focusing on Mainland China as a central case with comparisons to Taiwan (China), Japan, and the UK. Its purpose is to provide policy implementation evidence that can inform future domestic and international regulation, including decisions about repealing ineffective measures. The authors argue that software-enforced restrictions on playtime and spending, widely used in East Asia, deserve closer scrutiny because their real-world effectiveness depends heavily on how companies actually implement them.

The method is a content analysis of the account creation processes for the 100 highest-grossing iPhone games in each of the four jurisdictions. In Mainland China, 95.0% of games carried out identity verification as required, but 5.0% were accessible without completing it, which the authors identify as a regulatory breach. The study finds the prevailing verification process has significant weaknesses, including ease of circumvention, and recommends transmitting sensitive personal data only to a third-party verification provider. It also flags confusion caused by two simultaneous age rating systems that often give conflicting guidance, and it proposes a single, culturally appropriate system that includes an 18+ rating.

Findings in the comparison markets show different patterns. In Taiwan (China), most games, including social casino titles, could be played without any identity or age verification, and only 9% used self-declaration-based age checks, which younger players could easily bypass by misstating their age. In Japan, no in-game identity verification was observed, while 56% of games used self-declaration, most commonly by entering a birth date or current age (43%). In the UK, just over a third of games used self-declaration, a method the authors note is not considered sufficiently robust under the Online Safety Act 2023. The authors suggest these results are relevant beyond gaming, since many countries rely on similar software solutions to protect young people from online harms such as pornography and gambling.