Online Oripa in Japan: Gambling Law, Premiums Rules and Payment Regulation
Hello! I am Noriaki Asato, Representative Attorney at Legal Agent.
An online "oripa" service works like this: a user buys points, opens a pack on screen, and instantly sees which trading card they have won. The user can request shipment of the physical card, or decline delivery and convert the card into site points to open the next pack. The term "oripa", short for "original pack", refers to packs assembled by card shops from second-hand trading cards and sold sight-unseen through a random draw.
Calling a service an oripa does not determine how the law treats it. Regulators and courts look at the actual mechanics of the service under existing statutes, including the gambling and lottery provisions of the Penal Code.
The gambling offence under Article 185 of the Penal Code
Article 185 of the Penal Code punishes gambling with a fine of up to JPY 500,000 or a petty fine, unless the wager involves items of momentary amusement under its proviso. In addition, individuals involved in operating the scheme may face charges for running a gambling establishment for profit under Article 186(2), which carries a prison term of three months to five years if the statutory elements are met.
While the Penal Code does not define gambling, legal practice and doctrine treat it as contesting the gain or loss of property based on chance. Chance means that the parties cannot foresee or control the outcome with certainty, and the presence of skill does not negate chance if an element of chance remains. Contesting gain or loss requires that both sides bear a risk of losing property. Where only one side bears that risk, there is no contest, making mutual risk an essential element to examine. Distinguishing a draw from an ordinary sale depends on the actual consideration paid, the genuine product value, and any redemption arrangements; the absence of a single gambling element does not establish overall legality.
The lottery offence under Article 187
Article 187 of the Penal Code punishes the sale of lottery tickets. In legal terms, a lottery involves collecting money from buyers and distributing property among them unequally by chance, where purchasers definitively surrender the price paid. Because public lotteries are permitted only under strict statutory schemes with authorized issuers and official approvals, private operators cannot simply adopt that arrangement on their own.
Application to online oripa
In a typical online oripa setup, many packs contain cards worth significantly less than the price of the draw. A purchaser who draws one of these cards loses the difference, and those pooled losses effectively fund the high-value jackpot cards. The customer therefore bears a risk of losing property, which strongly pushes the service toward a gambling characterization. The common defense that "every draw wins some card" fails to resolve this issue, because receiving a card worth less than the draw price still leaves the buyer out of pocket. Features that let users convert drawn cards back into site points, operator buy-backs of winning cards, and cash-out routes through partner shops all reinforce a gambling characterization, as they indicate that users are chasing economic value rather than acquiring the cards themselves. Furthermore, adding jackpot cards or adjusting release schedules must be evaluated against the advertised inventory and stated draw terms. While such adjustments alone do not prove a crime, they are relevant to whether the service functions as an unlawful redistribution scheme or whether representations are false.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) discussed a specific random NFT-pack model in its December 2022 Sports DX Report, referenced on page 52 of its Web3 policy materials. The report suggests room to interpret such sales as falling outside the scope of gambling if three conditions are satisfied: the NFT's value is clearly ascertainable, no item is worth less than the sale price, and the seller does not repurchase the item below that price, even if a secondary market is provided. Crucially, this reflects a qualified administrative perspective on digital tokens, not a binding judicial precedent or a safe harbor for physical trading cards.
Three possible structural adjustments merit examination, though none of them guarantees legal compliance. First, ensuring verifiable product value at least equal to each pack's price can support an argument that buyers do not risk financial loss. Second, selling a designated product at its true market value with a separately funded random bonus shifts the legal analysis, potentially bringing the bonus under the Premiums and Representations Act instead. Third, free draws must remain genuinely decoupled from payment, as conditioning participation on a purchase or store visit can still trigger premiums regulations. Furthermore, buy-backs and point conversion require assessment as integral parts of the overall transaction, although the METI discussion does not prohibit every secondary-market arrangement. Keeping clear inventory, valuation, and allocation records helps demonstrate the true substance of the business, but documentation alone cannot establish legality. Finally, if advertised jackpot cards never actually existed in the draw pool, operators face potential fraud charges under Article 246 of the Penal Code in addition to gambling or lottery violations.
Premiums and representations
Under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, the Consumer Affairs Agency’s paid-lottery guidance distinguishes goods that constitute the transaction itself in normal commercial practice from incidental premiums. Additional last-one prizes or bonuses must be classified according to their actual conditions. Referral rewards are not always premiums: a standard referral reward without restricting referrers to the operator’s purchasers lacks transaction linkage, whereas restricting eligibility to purchasers generally attracts non-lottery premium rules. Providing an incidental premium for a specified combination of two or more different card types falls under the prohibited card-combination method, though collecting cards by itself is not universally prohibited.
Claims regarding return rates, remaining jackpot counts, and card grading must match what is actually offered, with supporting evidence retained. Under the substantiation regime for effectiveness or performance claims, failure to provide requested reasonable evidence within the deadline, or inadequate evidence, leads to a deemed misleading representation for corrective orders under Article 7(2), but a presumption for surcharges under Article 8(3). Sponsored influencer content that constitutes the advertiser’s representation must be recognizable as advertising under the designation effective since October 2023. The operator as advertiser is the regulated party for that rule. Article 22 also requires measures for the proper management of representations.
Secondhand dealer licensing and e-commerce rules
Buying and reselling second-hand cards as a business requires a permit from the Public Safety Commission governing the principal business office. Before online buy-backs, operators must determine whether identity verification is required, including statutory exceptions for transactions below JPY 10,000 and specified items. Where verification is required, simply receiving a copy of a driver’s license is insufficient; a prescribed non-face-to-face method must be used.
Distance sales of oripa require statutory disclosures under the Specified Commercial Transactions Act. The final confirmation screen must display quantity, price, payment timing and method, delivery timing, withdrawal and cancellation terms, and any application deadline. Rescission under Article 15-4 requires a statutory breach that causes the customer’s mistaken application. Where return terms are not properly displayed in the advertisement and order process, Article 15-3 generally permits withdrawal or cancellation within eight days after delivery, with return shipping borne by the buyer. There is no general cooling-off right for distance sales. A properly displayed no-return term for unwanted goods does not automatically remove liability for non-conforming or counterfeit goods.
Prepaid points under the Payment Services Act
Paid site points meeting the statutory definition qualify as prepaid payment instruments. For own-use instruments, advance registration is not required, but first exceeding JPY 10 million of unused value on 31 March or 30 September triggers notification within two months and an obligation to secure at least half the entire balance through deposit or permitted alternatives.
Instruments usable at third-party merchants generally require prior registration. Instruments usable only within six months of issue are exempt under Article 4. Regulated issuers are subject to the general refund prohibition under Article 20(5), subject to statutory exceptions including closure and specified small refunds. Contract rescission refunds and routine cash-outs must be distinguished; features resembling funds transfers or deposit-taking require separate legal analysis.
Paid and free points should be distinguishable in records, or the combined balance may need to be included. Points issued in exchange for surrendering a card are not automatically free points. Common issues with in-game currency are covered in Game Payments and Gacha.
Minors and terms of use
Contracts made by minors under 18 without the consent of a legal representative are generally rescindable under Civil Code Article 5, with exceptions including acts within property they were permitted to dispose of; Articles 6 and 21 may also apply. A simple adult checkbox does not automatically remove rescission rights. False birth-date entry must be assessed alongside screen design, warnings, intent, and other circumstances, as discussed in the Consumer Affairs Agency’s consultation manual, pages 15–18. The minor’s restitution obligation is limited to the benefit still retained under Article 121-2(3). Operators should provide meaningful age and consent checks, purchase limits, and a cancellation-response process.
Consumer Contract Act Article 8 invalidates specified blanket damages exclusions, subject to the non-conformity exception in paragraph 2. Since June 2023, paragraph 3 also invalidates partial liability exclusions that fail to make clear they apply only to negligence excluding gross negligence and intent. Even an expressly ordinary-negligence cap may fail under Article 10. Invalidity does not dispense with the legal requirements for a damages claim. Incident refunds or redraws must preserve statutory rights.
Checks before launch
Before selling, reconcile card inventory and valuation evidence with draw specifications and allocation records. Check that issuance, conversion, and expiry of points match the ledger and screens, and that advertising figures can be traced to actual records. Each applicable law must be checked against the substance of the transaction.
LegalAgent advises on random-sale schemes across gambling-law assessment, secondhand dealer licensing, prepaid payment instruments, terms of use, and advertising review.