California Moves to Protect Digital Game Owners: The Protect Our Games Act

What is the Protect Our Games Act?

Assembly Bill 1921, named the Protect Our Games Act, is a California bill aimed at protecting consumers who lose access to digital games they have paid for when the operator shuts down the services those games rely on. It is not currently in force. The bill passed the California State Assembly but failed to advance out of its second Senate committee, though the committee granted reconsideration, leaving a procedural route to bring it back.

Which games would it cover?

Only digital games first made available, or re-released, for purchase on or after January 1, 2028 are covered by the Protect Our Games Act. Subscription services, free-to-play titles, and games that allow permanent offline download are excluded.

What would operators actually have to do?

Two things. First, 60 days’ advance notice, through the game and on the operator’s website, of the shutdown date, the services and features being lost, any resulting security risks, and how purchasers can keep playing or obtain a refund. Second, once services end, they would have to provide at least one alternative (an offline version, an enabling patch, community server tools or documentation, or a refund).

Does this affect Canadian operators?

Not at present. Assembly Bill 1921 is a California statute and, if revived and enacted, would apply to games sold into that market. Canadian operators distributing into California could nonetheless be caught, and the underlying trend may inform how Canadian consumer protection regulators approach digital ownership.

Modern video games increasingly depend on an operator’s servers and online services to function. When those services are switched off, a game a consumer paid for can become partially or entirely unplayable, a scenario brought into focus by high-profile shutdowns such as Ubisoft’s de-listing of the online racing game The Crew in 2024 and Sony’s decision to take its live-service shooter Concord offline just weeks after its 2024 launch.

California’s Protect Our Games Act[1] (Assembly Bill 1921) is one of the first legislative attempts in the US to address that problem directly, by regulating what an operator must do before and after it ends the services a purchased game relies on.

The bill sits alongside a growing body of law aimed at the transparency and durability of digital ownership. While this is a US development and would therefore have no direct application in Canada, its structure is a useful indicator of where consumer-facing regulation of digital games may be heading in markets that Canadian operators sell into.

What the Act Covers

The Protect Our Games Act would apply to “digital game operators”, a term that captures publishers, developers, and others who control whether a purchaser can make “ordinary use” of a game (for example, through authentication systems, server access, digital rights management, or required updates). “Ordinary use” is defined by reference to a game’s core features and the reasonable expectations a purchaser would have formed based on how the game was advertised or described at the time of purchase.

Where it applies, the Act would impose two core obligations. First, before ceasing any service necessary for ordinary use, the operator would have to give purchasers 60 days’ notice, both in the game and on its website, setting out the shutdown date, the services and features that will be lost, any known resulting security risks, and how purchasers can either keep playing or obtain a refund. Second, after services end, the operator would have to provide at least one of the following:

  1. An offline version independent of its services;
  2. A patch or update enabling offline, independent play;
  3. A refund equal to the highest price charged for the game in the preceding 12 months;
  4. Documentation allowing the purchaser to host a private or community server; or
  5. Server software allowing continued ordinary use, provided any additional requirements are reasonably attainable and were communicated.

Once services cease, the operator would no longer be able to sell or distribute the game.

The scope is deliberately narrow. Through successive amendments, coverage was limited to digital games first made available, or re-released, for purchase on or after January 1, 2028. The bill also expressly excludes subscription services that offer access only for the subscription term, free-to-play games offered for no monetary consideration, and games the operator cannot revoke access to after purchase (including titles available for permanent offline download).

What This Means for Operators

For now, the practical answer is that nothing changes. While the bill passed the State Assembly, it failed to advance out of committee in the California Senate. The committee has, however, granted reconsideration, leaving a procedural route to bring it back. Its prospects are therefore uncertain, and in any event no obligations are in force and none would apply in Canada.

That said, California is already making moves on digital ownership more broadly. Assembly Bill 2426[2], in force since January 1, 2025, prohibits sellers from using words like “buy” or “purchase” for digital goods (including games, films, and e-books) without disclosing that the consumer is obtaining only a revocable license rather than outright ownership. Whether or not Assembly Bill 1921 is revived, the trajectory in California suggests further regulation of digital product lifecycles is likely.

The momentum is not limited to California. Around the world, consumers are pushing back against losing access to games they paid for. The consumer-led “Stop Killing Games” campaign has driven the case for digital game preservation, and in parallel, a European Citizens’ Initiative, “Stop Destroying Videogames,” was submitted to the European Commission in January 2026 with nearly 1.3 million verified signatures.

Against that backdrop, operators may no longer treat game shutdowns as a purely commercial decision. Even without an enforceable playability mandate in California, the EU, or Canada, operators that shut down services needed to play a purchased game may already face exposure under existing consumer protection laws. Anyone selling into these markets should be factoring end-of-life planning into how a game is built, sold, and described from the outset, including notice and disclosure procedures and how ownership is presented at the point of sale.

If you have questions about this article or video game law, we would love to hear from you. Feel free to reach out to us at 1-800-604-1312 or https://segevllp.com/contact-us/.

Disclaimer

***The above blog post is provided for informational purposes only and has not been tailored to your specific circumstances. This blog post does not constitute legal advice or other professional advice and may not be relied upon as such.***

Links

[1] Protect Our Games Act – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921

[2] Assembly Bill 2426 – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426