California’s Protect Our Games Act, AB 1921, cleared the state Assembly Appropriations Committee in an 11-2 vote, putting it one step away from a full floor vote. Under the current text, a publisher planning to end online service for a game would have two options before shutdown: issue full refunds to buyers or release an updated version that can operate independently without relying on the publisher’s own servers.
Publishers would need 60 days’ notice before ending required services
The bill focuses on cases where a company plans to terminate services necessary for normal gameplay. It would require publishers to notify players at least 60 days in advance. After that notice, the publisher must either return the purchase price or make available an offline build, or a version that can keep running without direct dependence on the original server infrastructure. For games tied to authentication systems, matchmaking, or server-hosted content, that would change how end-of-life planning is handled.
Paid games are covered, while free-to-play and subscription-only titles are exempt
AB 1921 does not apply to every title on the market. The current version includes two carve-outs: fully free games are excluded, and games made available only during a subscription period are also exempt. If the bill passes the full chamber and becomes law, the requirements would apply to paid games released in California on or after Jan. 1, 2027. The delayed effective date gives publishers time, but it also puts future product design, server dependencies, and consumer terms under closer scrutiny.
Stop Killing Games backed the effort, while ESA warned about costs
One of the groups behind the push is the UK-based player advocacy organization Stop Killing Games, formed in 2024 after Ubisoft announced the shutdown of the online racing game The Crew. Its campaign argues that players should not lose access to products they paid for simply because a publisher decides to discontinue service. SKG lead Monitz Katzner wrote on Reddit that when he traveled to the US to help organize SKG-US, he did not expect the effort to move this quickly. The bill was originally introduced by California Assemblymember Chris Ward, and SKG said it helped draft the measure.
Industry opposition has been direct. The Entertainment Software Association, which represents major game publishers, argued that forcing companies to create offline versions could impose significant development and maintenance costs, especially on smaller studios, and could weigh on investment decisions across the sector. Supporters answer that a paid product should remain usable in some form. The bill now heads to a full Assembly vote, where California could set an early benchmark for digital consumer protections in games.