California Panel Advances Bill Requiring Refunds or Offline Versions After Paid Game Server Shutdowns

California’s proposed “Protect Our Games Act” moved a step closer to becoming law Wednesday after clearing the Assembly Appropriations Committee, advancing a bill that would require publishers of many paid online games sold in the state to either keep them playable after server shutdowns, offer a full refund, or do both after giving users advance notice.

Assembly Bill 1921, introduced by Assembly Member Chris Ward on Feb. 12, passed the committee on May 14 by an 11-2 vote, with two members not voting, and now heads to the full Assembly floor. The bill would create a state-level framework for paid digital games offered for sale in California on or after Jan. 1, 2027, requiring operators that end services needed for a game’s ordinary use to warn customers ahead of time and provide a remedy.

Under the current amended text, operators would have to give purchasers and prospective purchasers at least 60 days’ notice before shutting down required services. That notice would need to say when the services will end, which services or features are affected, any known security risks, and how users can keep using the game or get a refund.

When those services end, the operator would have to provide at least one of three options: a version of the game that works without operator-controlled services, a patch or update that makes continued use possible without those services, or a refund equal to the full purchase price.

The bill would also bar operators, once required services have ended, from continuing to sell, lease or distribute versions of the game that cannot function without operator-controlled services.

AB 1921 applies to paid digital games sold in California on or after Jan. 1, 2027. It would not cover free-to-play games, games offered only for the length of a subscription, or games already sold in a form where the seller cannot revoke access, such as a permanent offline version provided at the time of sale.

Enforcement would be left to public officials. The current text authorizes action by the California attorney general or local district attorneys and does not create a private right of action for individual buyers.

The measure has drawn support from game-preservation and consumer groups. Stop Killing Games and Consumer Reports are listed as supporters in committee materials. In an Assembly committee analysis, Stop Killing Games said, “There is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then ripped away without notice. … AB 1921 is a critical step for consumer rights.”

The Entertainment Software Association, the video game industry’s main trade group, formally opposed the bill and testified against it in committee. Jennifer Gibbons of the ESA said at an April 16 hearing, “While well intentioned, we do have serious concerns that the bill creates major legal, technical, and economic challenges for video game developers.” The group argued the measure could be especially difficult for games built around licensed content, third-party technology or server-dependent designs.

The bill arrives amid a broader debate over what consumers are buying when they pay for digital games that depend on online services. When publishers shut those services down, some games can become partly or entirely unusable. The Stop Killing Games campaign grew out of backlash to shutdowns such as Ubisoft’s “The Crew” and has pressed for preservation and consumer remedies.

California has already tightened digital-goods rules with AB 2426, signed in 2024 and effective in 2025, which requires clearer disclosures that many digital purchases are licenses rather than ownership. AB 1921 goes further by addressing what happens when a paid game reaches the end of its life. Its next test is a vote by the full Assembly.