Protect Our – A California bill meant to discourage publishers from taking online games offline failed to move forward after a Business, Professions and Economic Development committee vote, with abstentions blocking the bill’s progression. The committee voted to reconsider,
The first sign that the Protect Our Games Act might not clear the next hurdle came in a quiet committee tally—one that left the bill short of enough votes to keep going.
In the California State Senate, the bill failed to pass the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee despite four state senators voting in favor, three voting against, and four abstaining. The result stopped the measure in its tracks for this session.
Supporters had pushed hard for momentum. Assemblymember Chris Ward introduced the bill in February. It then passed the California State Assembly 43-16 in late May.
But in the committee, the abstentions proved decisive. A volunteer with the Stop Killing Games campaign—who supported the bill—summed up the immediate consequence bluntly on Reddit: “Not enough yeses means the bill stops here for this session,” adding, “That is the loss.”
The same volunteer said this was the movement’s first attempt to nudge such legislation through in the US. They also claimed the bill reached this stage without paid staff or an in-person lobbying campaign.
Now the fight shifts toward strategy. The volunteer credited the Entertainment Software Association—described as a trade organization of major game industry publishers—with bringing in a lobbyist to halt the bill’s progress. The volunteer pointed to a specific claim attributed to that lobbying effort: that private servers for games like Minecraft would be “illegal.”.
In response, the volunteer said Stop Killing Games would be better prepared next time. “Next session. we come back with an in-person lobbying presence. the funding to do this properly and a long list of organizations and developers signed on in support. ” u/Mr_Presidentle wrote. They added that the effort would not be confined to California: “We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level.”.
While the bill is blocked for now, the committee did take a step that keeps the door from fully closing. The Business, Professions and Economic Development committee unanimously voted in favor of granting the bill reconsideration, meaning it could come back before these same state senators.
If the Protect Our Games Act were to become law as written, it would require publishers and “digital game operators” to give consumers a 60-day heads-up before delisting a game. The requirement would also include information on how players could either obtain a refund or continue playing.
The proposal would allow an alternative to full refunds: the publisher or operator could permit customers to keep playing by using a private- or community-run server.
There are exclusions. The rules would not apply to subscription-based or free-to-play games.
Supporters pointed to existing player experience as proof that transitions can be handled without leaving users stranded overnight. As VGC notes in the source material. players who logged into MultiVersus in the few months before it shut down in 2025 received an update that allowed them to keep playing the game offline. The volunteer’s broader argument is clear: approaches like that could give publishers and “digital game operators” another option to avoid mass refunds when servers are shut down.
For now, the bill’s fate rests on one thing: whether supporters can turn abstentions into yes votes when the measure returns.
California Protect Our Games Act Chris Ward Stop Killing Games Entertainment Software Association online games delisting private servers digital game operators refund rules MultiVersus