California Bill Would Require 60-Day Notice Before Game Shutdowns

Video game players in California may soon have stronger legal protection against sudden service shutdowns. A proposed bill, the Protect Our Games Act, is currently moving through the state legislature after a recent vote for reconsideration. The legislation targets the practice where publishers stop maintaining the servers required to play their games, effectively rendering owned titles unplayable.

This move mirrors a growing trend in digital consumer rights across the Atlantic. While the European Union is currently exploring industry codes of conduct rather than strict mandates, California is drafting specific legal requirements. The goal is to ensure that when a game operator decides to end support, they do so in a way that respects the investment of the consumer.

New Rules for Ending Game Support

If passed as currently drafted, the Act would apply to any game released on or after January 1, 2027. Before an operator can shut down services necessary for normal play, they must provide at least 60 days' notice to consumers. During this period, the publisher would be required to offer one of three options: a refund, a patch that allows the game to run offline, or an alternate version that does not rely on the discontinued servers.

The definition of normal use is central to this protection. It refers to the ability to access core features as described in marketing materials at the time of purchase. This prevents companies from claiming that a specific online feature is optional if it was presented as essential to the experience. The 60-day window gives players time to decide whether to keep the game or seek a refund.

Preventing Repackaged Game Resales

The bill also addresses a common industry practice of shutting down a live-service game and then repackaging it as a remaster. Under the new rules, an operator is prohibited from selling a version of a game that cannot be used without their controlled services. This means that if a game requires a server to function, it cannot be re-released later unless that dependency is removed.

This provision aims to stop companies from charging players a second time for access to the same content after the original version has been made unplayable. By requiring independence from online servers for any future release, the law protects the integrity of the initial purchase and discourages the cycle of artificial scarcity and repeated monetization.

Enforcement and Consumer Recourse

There is a significant trade-off in how these rights are enforced. The Act does not provide a private right of action for individual players. This means that a consumer cannot directly sue a game publisher for violating these provisions. Instead, enforcement is reserved exclusively for the California Attorney General or district attorneys through civil actions.

According to analysis from GN technics/gaming (en-US), this limitation means that individual players will rely on government oversight rather than personal legal recourse. While the bill strengthens regulatory standards, the lack of individual lawsuit options places the burden of enforcement on state officials. This reflects a broader legal strategy where consumer protections are managed through public prosecution rather than private litigation.