U.S. Representative Ritchie Torres said he plans to introduce the Power To The Players Act, arguing that players who pay for a game should receive ownership rather than a revocable license. Under an Oct. 15 press release from Torres’ office, games with online features would also need to offer an offline mode before their servers are shut down.
The proposal has not yet been formally introduced in the House of Representatives, and the full bill text has not been made public.
A federal proposal with major details still missing
Torres is a Democrat representing New York’s 15th Congressional District, which covers the Bronx. According to the press release, the bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, to write rules protecting consumers’ rights to own and play the games they purchase.
Torres’ office framed the proposal as a response to the gaming industry’s shift toward all-digital games and hardware, where physical purchase options have been reduced and many digital titles are sold under terms that can be revoked.
NBA 2K25 cited as an example
The press release pointed to NBA 2K25 as an example. Its standard edition is priced at $69.99, while the All-Star edition costs $99.99. The game is set to be removed from digital storefronts on Oct. 30, and its online servers are scheduled to shut down on Dec. 31, only two years after launch.
Beyond ownership and offline access, the release said the bill would preserve consumers’ ability to possess and resell games, allowing purchased titles to continue being played with friends and family.
Torres said, 「When you pay for a game, you should own it.」 He added, 「Consumers must have ownership rights, play rights, and transfer rights over the games they buy.」 He also described the current model as a rental disguised as a sale when a company can simply pull the plug and take the game away.
Still, those promises cannot yet be checked against actual legislative language. The public has no bill text to review, so there is no way to assess how ownership would be defined, how resale would be implemented, or what an acceptable offline mode would need to include.
California, Pennsylvania, and the EU have all tried similar approaches
Comparable efforts have already appeared at the state level in the U.S. and in Europe, but none has produced a final, enforceable framework.
California’s AB 1921 was introduced by State Assemblymember Chris Ward. It would have required publishers to give advance notice before ending service and to provide either a standalone playable version or a refund. California legislative records show the bill passed the State Assembly on May 27 by a 43-16 vote, then passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 22 by a 6-2 vote. It failed on June 29 in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. Although it later received another chance for reconsideration, the public record stops there, and California’s deadline for floor votes this session, Aug. 31, has already passed.
Pennsylvania is at an earlier stage. State Senator John Kane circulated a co-sponsorship memo in September for a proposed state measure called the Protect Our Games Act. The proposal would require publishers to give players at least 60 days’ notice before ending access to a game or changing its functionality, and to offer remedies such as offline play, a patch that keeps the game running, or a refund. It is still seeking co-sponsors and has not been formally introduced.
In Europe, the push came from players themselves through the Stop Killing Games campaign. The European Citizens’ Initiative, Stop Destroying Videogames, gathered about 1.29 million valid signatures. But when the European Commission issued its formal response in June 2026, it did not propose new legislation. Instead, it opted for talks with industry and consumer groups and support for a voluntary code of conduct.
Sony faces a separate court fight in California
A parallel dispute is playing out in court. Records from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California show that four players filed a class action on June 18 under case number 3:26-cv-06016. They argue that the “Purchase” button on the PlayStation Store gives consumers the impression that they are buying ownership, in violation of California’s AB 2426, a 2024 law that took effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
That law requires sellers of digital goods to clearly disclose when a transaction is only for a revocable license and says they cannot rely on the word “purchase” alone.
The defendant is Sony Interactive Entertainment. Court records show Sony has moved to compel arbitration and stay the case, or alternatively to dismiss it. A hearing that had been set for Oct. 1 was moved by Judge Vince Chhabria to Oct. 29. On Oct. 8, both sides also asked to pause other litigation activity until the court rules on that motion.
Little time left in the current Congress
The biggest obstacle for Torres’ proposal is time. The 119th U.S. Congress ends on Jan. 3, 2027. Any bill that has not completed the legislative process by then expires and must be reintroduced in the next Congress.
Torres said he would introduce the bill less than three weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm election, and it still has not been formally submitted to the House. Based on that timeline, it is highly unlikely to complete the full process in the current Congress.
Its more immediate significance may be that it elevates the issue to the federal level and lays groundwork for another attempt next year. Even if the bill were eventually enacted, the FTC would still need to write the detailed rules, including how offline functionality would be judged and how resale would operate. California’s stalled bill, the EU’s decision not to legislate, and Pennsylvania’s still-unfiled proposal all point to the same conclusion: turning this kind of consumer protection idea into enforceable rules is difficult.