California Legislation Aimed at Safeguarding Online Games Falls Short in Committee Vote
A proposed legislative measure in California, intended to protect the availability of online games, has encountered significant hurdles in the State Senate. The Protect Our Games Act did not secure enough support, failing to pass the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee with a vote of four in favor, three against, and four abstentions.
The committee did express unanimous support for reconsideration of the bill, which could allow it to be revisited by the senators in the future. Introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward in February, the bill was previously approved by the California State Assembly with a vote of 43-16 in late May.
However, the abstentions ultimately stalled its advancement. A representative from the Stop Killing Games initiative, which backed the bill, commented on Reddit that the insufficient number of affirmative votes meant the bill would not move forward in this session. “That is the loss,” they remarked.
This effort is noted as the movement’s inaugural attempt at such legislation in the U.S., achieving this level of progress without a formal lobbying campaign or paid personnel. According to the volunteer, the Entertainment Software Association, representing key gaming industry publishers, employed lobbyists to impede the bill’s progress, notably by stating that private servers for titles like Minecraft would be “illegal.” The group aims to better prepare for future opposition.
“Next session, we plan to return with in-person lobbying, adequate funding, and a coalition of organizations and developers backing us,” the volunteer mentioned. “Our scope is not limited to California; we intend to pursue similar initiatives in other states and are actively considering a federal approach.”
If enacted, the California legislation would obligate game publishers and digital operators to provide consumers with a 60-day notice prior to a game’s removal from availability, along with options for refunds or continued access. For example, publishers could facilitate gameplay through private or community-run servers instead of offering full refunds. The guidelines would not extend to subscription-based or free-to-play models.
As referenced by VGC, players of MultiVersus who logged in shortly before its shutdown received an update that allowed continued offline play, demonstrating one potential strategy for publishers to mitigate the financial impact of server closures if such regulations are passed.
