GOD i swear on my life i found a page that outlined what states had some precedent about virtual goods codes, but it eludes me now.
however, i do have this: https://irblaw.com.sg/learning-centre/selling-online-game-accounts/
while this specifically covers accounts, items, and currency, because the ONLY value and use of a virtual item code is that it provides a service/item/currency/feature that is tethered to the intellectual property of the site upon redemption, and FR has outlined in their EULA - on which this law site outlines is the only *truly* important part of the item's ownership rulings - that these things are NOT to be traded, they DO have legal standing to protect their game codes as you do not have the right to sell or trade their IP outside of the guidelines they set, which includes RMT. i STRONGLY recommend that if you have more questions, you reach out to a lawyer who has worked cases about digital goods before. they would know infinitely more than me, because unfortunately, virtual goods are NOT treated as personal property almost everywhere, which makes it impossible to research more into.
there's a neat thing, though! a couple of years back, there was a court case in europe about whether or not digital game items/goods can be considered personal property (a user was complainant against the developers for removing their access to goods they had bought with RLC), as you buy them just like any other item in real life. i wish i could find that court case, because it was genuinely fascinating, and i do believe it ruled in favour of the player. i had found it while researching MMO scams and the like (i THINK this one was habbo hotel, but good luck finding that court case amid the countless others i'm not allowed to talk about here), and i wish i could remember more about it, because it set a precedent. while it wouldn't mean anything to a US company like FR, it was a very important court case.
Re: Booleano
however, i do have this: https://irblaw.com.sg/learning-centre/selling-online-game-accounts/
while this specifically covers accounts, items, and currency, because the ONLY value and use of a virtual item code is that it provides a service/item/currency/feature that is tethered to the intellectual property of the site upon redemption, and FR has outlined in their EULA - on which this law site outlines is the only *truly* important part of the item's ownership rulings - that these things are NOT to be traded, they DO have legal standing to protect their game codes as you do not have the right to sell or trade their IP outside of the guidelines they set, which includes RMT. i STRONGLY recommend that if you have more questions, you reach out to a lawyer who has worked cases about digital goods before. they would know infinitely more than me, because unfortunately, virtual goods are NOT treated as personal property almost everywhere, which makes it impossible to research more into.
there's a neat thing, though! a couple of years back, there was a court case in europe about whether or not digital game items/goods can be considered personal property (a user was complainant against the developers for removing their access to goods they had bought with RLC), as you buy them just like any other item in real life. i wish i could find that court case, because it was genuinely fascinating, and i do believe it ruled in favour of the player. i had found it while researching MMO scams and the like (i THINK this one was habbo hotel, but good luck finding that court case amid the countless others i'm not allowed to talk about here), and i wish i could remember more about it, because it set a precedent. while it wouldn't mean anything to a US company like FR, it was a very important court case.