A US bill inspired by the Stop Killing Games movement – a push to ensure better games preservation in the case of online service closure – has passed its first vote in the California State Assembly.
The ‘Protect Our Games’ Act, aka Bill 1921, was proposed by Assemblyman Chris Ward earlier in 2026, with various amendments sharpening its intention to provide better warning to consumers in the event of planned game shutdowns, and to force companies to either provide an offline alternative to players or deliver full refunds.
US games preservation bill – quick links
The ‘Protect Our Games’ Act
As Chris Ward argued, ensuring access to purchased games is a matter of consumer protection and games preservation. It’s important to ensure that players can buy games and reasonably expect them to be supported, or otherwise be maintained, so they may continue to play them, or be offered recourse in the case of shutdowns.
As reported by VGC, the proposed Protect Our Games bill was recently put to a vote in the California State Assembly, where it passed with a total of 43-16.
It will now advance to assessment by the US State Senate, where a further vote will be held. Should it be passed again, a final version of the bill will be refined by members of the US House and Senate, before being submitted for a final approval within the wider legislature.
For any bill passed, the US President will have a say to sign or veto it within 10 days.
What’s worth noting is that while the Protect Our Games bill has advanced, with a majority vote ensuring it will be seen by the US Senate, it has faced significant opposition along the way and may still be shot down.
ESA opposes Protect Our Games preservation bill
As reported by GameSpot in May, the bill was recently opposed by the Entertainment Software Association, a US trade body that aims to ‘expand and protect the innovative and creative marketplace for the video game industry’.
The reasons for the opposition were that game studios would be put under increased pressure to maintain online systems that change over time, and that it could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features and technology.
The ESA claimed the bill would ‘ultimately mean fewer new and innovative experiences for players’.
Its statement focused on the impact of these changes on developers, rather than the consumers paying for products that may not work in the long term. Per the ESA, developers already account for consumers when they make hard decisions about server shutdowns, and therefore additional legislature for entrenched games preservation is not required to ensure this.
With the bill now hitting the US Senate, it’s likely to get more exposure, and therefore more strong opinions about its potential impact. Whether that’s in favour of consumers and games preservation, or of leaving developers free to decide the fate of their games, remains to be seen.
Should the games preservation bill pass through the upper layers of the US legal system, there will be a few caveats to its protection – notably, that the Protect Our Games Act will not be retrospective. Rather, the need to maintain games or refund players will only apply to fully paid (non-subscription and non-free-to-play) games released on or after 1 January 2027.
For now, we await the next bill assessment as the Protect Our Games bill is introduced to the US Senate.
Also on ScreenHub: Stop Killing Games – US bill to improve preservation of online games is facing major hurdles
In February, US Democratic Assembly member Chris Ward introduced the Stop Killing Games-inspired Bill 1921 to the California courts, in an attempt to improve protections for consumers purchasing online games. Since then, the bill has been amended twice, with the current goal being to provide better warning to consumers in the event of planned game shutdowns, and to force companies to either provide an offline alternative to players, or to deliver full refunds.
Read more …
