California’s State Assembly passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, by a 43 to 16 vote. The bill backed by Stop Killing Games now advances to the California Senate.
The California State Assembly passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, on May 27, 2026, by a vote of 43 to 16. Authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward and backed by the Stop Killing Games movement, the bill would require digital game publishers to give players 60 days’ notice before shutting down game servers, then either provide a playable version of the game, release an enabling patch, or issue a full refund. The bill now moves to the California State Senate, where committee hearings are expected in June.
What Does the Protect Our Games Act Actually Require?
AB 1921 targets server-dependent digital games sold or re-released on or after January 1, 2027. When a publisher decides to end support, they must notify players at least 60 days in advance through both the game itself and their official website. The notification must include the shutdown date, which services will end, which features will become unavailable, any known security risks, and how players can continue using the game or obtain a refund.
After shutdown, publishers must offer at least one of three remedies:
- A standalone version of the game that works independently of the publisher’s servers
- A patch or update enabling continued play without publisher-controlled infrastructure
- A full refund equal to the original purchase price
The bill also prohibits selling or distributing a game that has already been rendered unplayable. Enforcement falls to the California Attorney General or district attorneys through civil action.
What Is Excluded from the Bill?
Free-to-play games, subscription-based titles, and games that are already permanently playable offline are all exempt. The bill specifically targets paid games that rely on publisher-run online systems to function.
A notable amendment on May 18 narrowed the scope further. The original language covered any digital game “available for purchase” after January 1, 2027, which would have captured legacy back-catalogue titles still on sale. The revised text now applies only to games “first available for purchase or re-released for purchase” after that date, closing a loophole that concerned both publishers and legislators.
How Did Stop Killing Games Get Here?
The movement traces back to 2024 when Ubisoft shut down The Crew, an online racing game, permanently removing access for everyone who had purchased it. YouTuber Ross Scott of Accursed Farms launched the Stop Killing Games consumer campaign, arguing that publishers should not be allowed to sell a product and then destroy it.
The campaign grew rapidly. In Europe, the associated European Citizens’ Initiative “Stop Destroying Videogames” collected 1,448,271 signatures before closing in July 2025. After validation, 1,294,188 signatures were confirmed valid, well above the one million threshold required to force a formal European Commission response. The initiative was officially submitted to the Commission on January 26, 2026.
In April 2026, Stop Killing Games publicly backed California’s AB 1921, helping advise on the drafting of the legislation. The bill cleared the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Appropriations Committee (11-2 vote) before passing the full Assembly floor vote.
What Happened at the European Parliament?
On April 16, 2026, the European Parliament held a public hearing on the initiative, hosted jointly by the Internal Market (IMCO), Legal Affairs (JURI), and Petitions (PETI) committees. Ross Scott, organiser Daniel Ondruška, Moritz Katzner, and legal experts presented their case to MEPs.
The hearing was widely seen as positive. Committee Vice Chair Nils Ušakovs called the initiative “a concern for probably hundreds of millions of European citizens.” MEPs raised topics including a “right to resurrect” for abandoned software, guarantee periods for digital products, and integration with the planned Digital Fairness Act. European Commission copyright lawyer Giuseppe Abbamonte pledged to review copyright regulations and report findings in July.
A plenary session on May 21, 2026, further discussed the initiative with cross-party support. European Commissioner Michael McGrath confirmed on May 7 that the Commission’s formal response is expected by late June or July 2026. The Commission is legally obligated to respond, though it is not required to propose legislation.
Why Is the ESA Opposing the Bill?
The Entertainment Software Association, the US trade body that previously organised E3, has been the most vocal opponent of AB 1921. In a May 2026 letter to California lawmakers, the ESA argued the bill is “fundamentally flawed” and “could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features, and technology.”
Stop Killing Games responded within 24 hours, systematically addressing each argument. The movement pointed out that the bill does not require perpetual server support, does not mandate source code disclosure, and does not force publishers to reveal anti-cheat systems or security infrastructure. It simply requires one of three off-ramps when support ends. As the movement put it: “If your car’s GPS subscription ends, the provider shouldn’t get to remotely disable your car.”
Despite ESA lobbying, the bill cleared every committee stage and the full Assembly vote. Stop Killing Games described this as winning against the ESA three separate times in California’s legislative process.
What Comes Next for AB 1921?
Passing the Assembly is only the first legislative hurdle. The bill now goes to the California State Senate, where it will face policy committee hearings, potential further amendments, and a floor vote requiring at least 21 of 40 Senate votes to pass.
If the Senate approves it (potentially sending it back to the Assembly if amended), it moves to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. The Governor has 12 days to sign it into law, let it pass without signing, or veto it. If the entire process is completed in 2026, the law would take effect on January 1, 2027. If it runs into 2027, the effective date would shift to January 1, 2028.
Stop Killing Games organisers have suggested the Senate stage could be decisive for the bill’s fate and are encouraging public engagement to keep momentum going.
Why California Matters for Global Gaming
California is home to some of the world’s largest game publishers, including EA, Activision Blizzard, and numerous studios in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. Silicon Valley’s concentration of tech companies makes California legislation uniquely influential. A state-level consumer protection law here could effectively set standards for the entire industry, as publishers may find it simpler to apply uniform policies globally rather than maintain separate end-of-life frameworks for different jurisdictions.
Combined with the European Citizens’ Initiative, which represents the demands of over 1.29 million verified EU citizens, and the UK Parliament petition that gathered 189,887 signatures before debate in November 2025, the pressure on game publishers is mounting from multiple continents simultaneously.
The Bigger Picture: Digital Ownership Under Scrutiny
The Stop Killing Games movement taps into a broader cultural shift around digital ownership. As physical copies have given way to digital distribution, players increasingly find themselves holding licenses rather than products. When a publisher shuts down authentication servers, entire libraries can vanish overnight. The shutdowns of The Crew, Anthem, and Concord have become prominent examples of this practice.
In February 2026, Stop Killing Games announced the launch of two NGOs, one in the EU and one in the US, specifically for “long-term counter-lobbying” on game destruction. In France, consumer group UFC-Que Choisir filed a lawsuit against Ubisoft over The Crew’s shutdown in March 2026, alleging the company misled consumers about the permanence of their purchase.
The movement has been careful to frame its demands as reasonable minimum standards rather than radical changes. It does not ask publishers to keep servers running forever, does not demand source code releases, and does not challenge existing monetisation models. It asks only that when support ends, it ends responsibly.
Key Questions Players Are Asking
Would this law apply to games already shut down?
No. AB 1921 is not retroactive. It would only cover games first sold or re-released on or after January 1, 2027. Previously shut-down titles like The Crew would not be affected.
Does the bill require publishers to keep servers running forever?
No. Publishers can shut down servers whenever they choose. The bill only requires that when they do, they provide 60 days’ notice and then deliver one of three solutions: an offline-capable version, an enabling patch, or a full refund.
What about live-service microtransactions and DLC?
This remains one of the most debated aspects. Stop Killing Games has argued that refunds are particularly important for live-service titles where players may have purchased expansions, cosmetics, or DLC shortly before shutdown. Under the bill, refunds are the fallback remedy only when a playable version or enabling patch is not provided.
When could this become law?
If the bill passes the California Senate and receives the Governor’s signature during 2026, it would take effect on January 1, 2027. Senate hearings are expected in June 2026, but the timeline depends on committee schedules and potential amendments.
What is happening in Europe?
The European Commission must formally respond to the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative by July 27, 2026. Commissioner McGrath indicated the response could come as early as June 16. The European Parliament hearing in April showed strong cross-party support, and integration with the upcoming Digital Fairness Act is considered a likely path forward.
