In recent years, claw machine shops have mushroomed in Hong Kong, enticing many consumers to try their luck with a vast variety of prizes and gameplay mechanisms. The Consumer Council has recorded an upward trend in complaints relating to claw machines over the past 3 years, rising from 16 cases in 2023 to 49 cases in 2024, and surging further to 138 cases in 2025. The situation warrants attention.
The complaints revealed that some machines displayed or positioned prizes in a way that was prone to misunderstanding; machine settings and gameplay explanations were unclear; and prize quality varied significantly. The Council urges claw machine operators to enhance transparency by clearly displaying, on the machine or in a conspicuous location, the charges, gameplay, mechanisms and winning conditions, as well as the contact details of the responsible person. Operators should also avoid setting games at an excessively difficult or even unreasonable level, which could undermine consumer rights or create negative perceptions. At the same time, they are advised to strengthen frontline staff training and customer service.
As for consumers, before patronising claw machines, they should carefully read the rules and prize descriptions on the machine. If any abnormal machine settings are observed, they should stop playing immediately and contact staff members for follow‑up. If there are no employees on site, consumers may retain communication records and gameplay videos as evidence for subsequent follow‑up. The Council will continue to closely monitor industry developments and reflect consumers’ concerns to the trade at appropriate times, with a view to promoting healthy industry development and improving the consumer experience.
Case 1: Empty Packaging Boxes Used as Decoration Caused Misunderstanding
Box Turned Out to Be Empty Only After Grabbing the Prize
The complainant visited Claw Machine Shop A with 2 children. One of the claw machines offered miniature toy suitcases as prizes, with a charge of $5 per game. In addition to the toys, packaging boxes of the same toys were placed along the edges inside the machine. However, the boxes were not transparent, nor were they labelled as empty boxes or for decorative purposes only. The complainant believed that the boxes contained toys, so the children attempted to grab the boxes for around 40 times, spending a total of around $200. They eventually succeeded in grabbing one of the boxes, only to discover that it was empty.
The complainant immediately contacted the machine owner via an instant messaging app, based on the information posted on the machine, and requested to exchange the box for a toy. The owner refused, stating that the box was merely part of the machine’s background decoration and not a prize. Dissatisfied that Claw Machine Shop A did not clearly indicate the box was empty or for decoration only, and believing that such a display was misleading for consumers, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Council.
In its reply to the Council, the person-in-charge of Claw Machine Shop A stated that they had subsequently contacted the complainant directly to gain a detailed understanding of her views regarding the packaging boxes displayed inside the machine. They apologised to the complainant and fully refunded the $200 gameplay fee. The case was resolved.
Case 2: Claw Loosened Immediately After Grabbing
Machine Settings Alleged to Be Unfair
The complainant played a coin-operated claw machine at an amusement arcade run by Company B, at a charge of $5 per game. Under normal settings, once the claw successfully grabs a plush toy, it should move towards the exit before releasing the toy directly above the prize chute. However, the complainant stated that on that day, after he successfully grabbed a toy, the claw automatically released when it reached the top of the machine, preventing the toy from being delivered to the prize chute. Conversely, when the claw failed to grab any toy, it would move to above the prize chute before releasing.
The complainant tried 15 times, spending a total of $75, but was unable to win any plush toy. He believed that the claw settings were abnormal and suspected that Company B had rigged the settings to make it difficult for consumers to win prizes, thereby undermining consumer rights. He therefore lodged a complaint with the Council.
In its reply, Company B stated that it had always valued customers’ gameplay experience and feedback. It had followed up on the claw condition reported by the complainant and had reproved the relevant staff, reminding frontline staff to proactively provide appropriate assistance and advice when customers had played multiple times without winning. The company would also strengthen on-site inspections to monitor the winning conditions of machines, so as to avoid excessive difficulty. Company B apologised to the complainant and offered 5 “buy 1 get 1 free” gameplay vouchers as a goodwill gesture, but the complainant did not accept the offer. The complainant later wrote to thank the Council for its assistance and expressed hope that the Council would continue to monitor the operation of the claw machine industry.
Case 3: Branded Plush Toy Had Lopsided Eyes
Quality Fell Short of Expectations
At Claw Machine Shop C, the complainant spotted a machine containing several branded plush toys. A label on the machine stated “includes authentic plush toys”, prompting the complainant to insert coins to play. After playing 8 games and spending $40, the complainant successfully won a rabbit plush toy, yet upon inspection, she found that its eyes were clearly lopsided. As the workmanship and quality fell short of her expectations of the brand, she suspected that the plush toy might not be authentic. She therefore lodged a complaint with the Council.
The Council contacted Claw Machine Shop C through various channels. Subsequently, the complainant informed the Council that the machine owner had contacted her directly. However, instead of directly addressing whether the plush toy was authentic, the owner cited an AI-generated analysis, explaining the characteristics of the barcode and labels on the plush toy and stating that it was a genuine product. As for the lopsided eyes, the owner attributed this to variations in handmade production, such as differences in stitching and the amount of cotton filling in the face. The owner suggested that the complainant could gently knead the plush toy’s face to adjust the position of the filling and improve its appearance.
After receiving the explanation, the complainant believed that the plush toy was authentic, but opined that the owner had failed to address the quality issue. She had no choice but to accept the explanation reluctantly.
The Consumer Council recommends claw machine operators to consider the following practices to reduce misunderstandings and consumer disputes:
- Game rules and explanations should be clearly displayed on the machine or in a conspicuous location, including the charge per game, gameplay, winning conditions, prohibited behaviours (such as hitting or shaking the machine), and whether special mechanisms such as “guaranteed grab” are available, so that consumers can make informed choices before playing;
- Machine difficulty should be set reasonably, including claw strength, prize placement and the size of the prize chute, to maintain reasonable chances of winning;
- If staff members cannot be stationed on site, the contact details of the responsible person should be posted in a visible location in the shop or on the machine, so that timely follow‑up assistance can be provided when needed, thereby reducing disputes;
- Prizes should be sourced through reputable channels to ensure product safety, reliability and lawful origin. Operators should comply with the Copyright Ordinance, Trade Descriptions Ordinance and Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance, among others, and provide accurate, clear and non‑misleading information when promoting or describing prizes. Claims such as “authentic”, “original manufacturer” or “limited edition” must be supported by reasonable grounds;
- If machines under different operating modes are present in the same venue (for example, “venue‑operated machines” and “machine owner‑operated machines”), the arrangements should be clearly indicated, and the corresponding contact details of the responsible persons should be provided for consumers’ identification.
Before / when playing at claw machine shops, consumers may take note of the following:
- Before playing, carefully read the rules and instructions on the machine, including the charge per game, winning conditions and whether special mechanisms apply. If abnormal settings are observed during gameplay, consider stopping immediately and contact on‑site staff or the responsible person for assistance. Record the time of the incident and retain relevant communication records for future follow‑up;
- Carefully observe the quality and authenticity of prizes to avoid impulsive consumption. If items inside claw machines are suspected to be counterfeit, verification may be sought from the relevant trademark owner or agent. Consumers may also consider filing a report to the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department;
- Pay attention to whether staff are stationed on site or whether contact details of the responsible person are provided. Many claw machine shops currently do not have on-site staff, and machines may belong to different machine owners, meaning immediate assistance may not be available if problems arise. Consumers should consider this before playing. They may also check whether closed‑circuit television systems are installed in the venue and, in the event of disputes, request traders as early as possible to retain and review relevant records to help verify gameplay and coin insertion;
- As most claw machines are coin‑operated, apart from chain stores with proprietary tokens, consumers generally find it difficult to retain verifiable records. It is recommended to photograph the machine number, prize condition and contact details of the responsible person before playing. Coin exchange receipts or electronic payment records should be properly kept, and photos or gameplay videos may also be taken;
- Rationally assess investment versus return. Whether a prize can be clawed out is influenced not only by machine settings and prize placement, but also by skill and luck. Consumers should weigh expected expenditure against the value of the prize to avoid over‑consumption or addiction.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/596-claw
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.