Updated June 2026: Since this story first published, the campaign has moved fast on two fronts. In the EU, the European Parliament held a plenary debate on the initiative on 21 May 2026 before the Commission ruled, and 45 members of the European Parliament have now signed an inquiry calling for legislative action. Stop Killing Games is formally pushing to fold its demands into the Digital Fairness Act – founder Ross Scott says the movement is now “in a position to pass legislation on this even without the Commission’s blessing.” In California, AB 1921 (the Protect Our Games Act) has advanced past its first State Senate milestone: the bill was amended on June 23, 2026 and reached its Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee hearing on June 29, 2026. The EU Commission’s underlying decision – no legal mandate, a voluntary code of conduct by end 2026 – remains unchanged. Figures below are current as of late June 2026.
The European Commission issued its formal response to the Stop Killing Games initiative on 16 June 2026. After 1,294,188 verified supporters petitioned Brussels to mandate that publishers keep games playable after server shutdowns, the Commission said it cannot impose a legal obligation on game companies to do so. Instead, it will attempt to broker a voluntary industry code of conduct by the end of 2026. For millions of consumers who bought games they can no longer access, the decision lands as a legal dead end – but a political conversation that is far from over.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What Is Stop Killing Games?
Stop Killing Games is a consumer rights campaign founded by content creator and activist Ross Scott, best known for the long-running Freeman’s Mind machinima series. The campaign’s core argument is straightforward: when a publisher shuts down the servers for an online game, players who paid for that game lose access to something they effectively own. The practice, Scott argues, would be unacceptable in any other industry – analogous to a car manufacturer remotely disabling your vehicle after deciding to end a model line.
The campaign gained momentum after Ubisoft shut down The Crew in 2024. Players who had purchased the open-world racing game found it completely unplayable after Ubisoft terminated server support – and, critically, Ubisoft also removed players’ ability to even launch the game offline. No patch was issued. No refund was automatically provided. The game simply stopped working, and the purchase became worthless. That case became the defining exhibit for Stop Killing Games, illustrating precisely the kind of practice the campaign seeks to prohibit.
Scott outlined the campaign’s minimalist demand in a widely-circulated video explaining the initiative: “We’re going for a light touch – it’s only once support ends that requirements would kick in. Any game sold or licensed would be required to be left in a functional state when support ends. This does not mean a perfect state – the point is simply that the game is better than completely inoperable. It would also require no connection to the publisher or affiliated parties in order for it to continue functioning – so it would need to be patched to either be offline or have private hosting only. It’s the only way. Anything less and the game dies.”
The ECI Timeline: From Petition to Brussels
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) mechanism requires organizers to collect at least one million verified signatures from EU citizens to compel the European Commission to formally examine a proposal. Stop Killing Games’ ECI, officially titled Stop Destroying Videogames, cleared that threshold and then some. On January 26, 2026, the initiative was formally submitted to the Commission with 1,294,188 verified statements of support – approximately 89% of the raw signature count after the standard verification process stripped out duplicates and ineligible signatories.
The submission triggered a fixed timeline. The Commission had until July 27, 2026 to present its official reply. Before that deadline, a public hearing was held at the European Parliament on April 16, 2026, organized jointly by three EP committees: the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), and the Committee on Petitions (PETI). MEP Markéta Gregorová was among the parliamentarians involved in the process. At the hearing, organizers presented their case and Commission representatives were questioned about their intended response. The European Parliament then debated the initiative directly in its plenary session on 21 May 2026, after which the Commission delivered its formal Communication on 16 June 2026 – roughly six weeks ahead of the official July 27 deadline.
The June 16 Decision: What the Commission Said
The Commission’s Communication was unambiguous in its refusal. The official statement read: “The Commission considers that at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially. This is due, also, to existing intellectual property rights. Under EU copyright law, rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations. In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game.” The Commission also flagged concerns about confidential business information, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity or safety risks once a game is no longer actively supported.
In place of legislation, the Commission committed to three actions. First, it will “initiate, by end 2026, an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games’ ‘end of life’.” Second, it will work with consumer organizations to raise awareness about existing consumer rights. Third, it will report on the application of the Directive on digital content and digital services before the end of the year. The Commission also noted that consumers may already be “entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases” under existing EU consumer law when digital content fails to conform to contract terms – a point consumer advocates noted is largely theoretical without active enforcement. Commentators reading the fine print noted that any code of conduct would more likely cover transparent storefront labelling about possible discontinuation, and partnerships with cultural-heritage institutions to archive games, rather than mandatory offline patches or private-server tools.
Reporting by 80.lv noted that the Commission’s decision came in the context of alleged consultations with Ubisoft, the publisher at the center of The Crew controversy. The Commission did not confirm the specifics of any such consultations, but the alignment between the Commission’s response and industry preferences was noted by campaign supporters. Game Developer’s reporting on the decision, published June 16, cited the Commission’s statement that it plans to engage with consumers and publishers by the end of 2026 to “explore ways to improve industry standards” – a phrase that consumer advocates characterized as deliberately non-committal.
Why the IP Rights Argument Is Both Legally Sound and Deeply Frustrating
The Commission’s IP rights argument is legally coherent. Under EU copyright law, a publisher retains full rights over a game’s source code, assets, and software even after ceasing commercial support. Mandating that publishers release offline patches or enable private server hosting would require those publishers to actively deploy their copyrighted work in ways they did not choose – potentially compelling them to transfer or disclose proprietary technology. The Commission’s analysis found that such a mandate would not be proportionate given existing IP frameworks.
Critics argue this framing fundamentally misunderstands the consumer relationship with digital games. When a consumer buys a physical product, existing right-to-repair laws increasingly protect their ability to maintain it. But when a consumer pays €60 for a digital game that requires server authentication to launch, they are purchasing access to a service – and if that service terminates, the purchase becomes void. The Commission itself acknowledged this tension, noting that the Directive on digital content and digital services provides remedies when “the content or service provided does not conform with the contract and what consumers could reasonably expect.”
The gap between theory and practice is substantial. EU consumer protection authorities have not historically pursued aggressive enforcement actions against game publishers for server shutdowns. The Commission’s hope that “active enforcement of existing consumer rights can also incentivise the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans” reads as aspirational to consumer advocates who have watched enforcement remain largely passive for years. The Commission’s citation of IP rights as an obstacle also conflates the right to own copyrighted content with the right to refuse to maintain consumer access – a distinction that legal scholars and MEPs are already challenging as the Digital Fairness Act process advances.
Industry Opposition: Video Games Europe’s Position
The video game industry’s trade bodies – primarily Video Games Europe and its counterparts in North America – consistently opposed mandatory preservation requirements throughout the ECI process. The industry’s core arguments echoed what the Commission ultimately adopted: publishers cannot be compelled to maintain games indefinitely, IP rights prevent mandatory offline patching, and business costs and cybersecurity concerns make blanket keep-playable mandates disproportionate. Publishers also argued that existing consumer law already provides adequate remedies, and that the diversity of online game architectures makes a one-size-fits-all solution impractical.
The Commission’s decision to align more closely with the industry’s position than with the ECI’s demands drew sharp criticism from consumer advocates and from the campaign’s 1.3 million supporters. The Stop Killing Games campaign responded to the June 16 decision by signaling it would escalate rather than retreat: the campaign announced it intends to push for amendments to the EU’s Digital Fairness Act – a legislative vehicle in development that could potentially incorporate game preservation requirements through a different legal pathway. Campaign materials stated: “We can move on without the Commission and its non-decision.”
The industry’s position is not without legitimate complexity. Some always-online games rely on dedicated server infrastructure that cannot practically be open-sourced or made privately hostable without extensive engineering work and security risk. Games that incorporate licensed music, film IP, or third-party assets face additional complications: the publisher may not hold sufficient rights to distribute an offline version of the game even if they wanted to. A blanket legislative mandate that ignores these complexities could create unfunded compliance obligations for smaller studios that lack the resources to engineer offline modes on short notice.
Games Shut Down Since 2022: A Running Ledger
The Stop Killing Games campaign is not arguing against a hypothetical problem. Since 2022, dozens of games have been shut down or delisted, rendering purchases worthless. The pace of shutdowns has accelerated as the live-service market becomes oversaturated and publishers rationalize their portfolios under financial pressure. The following table documents notable shutdowns across the 2022–2026 period.
| Game | Publisher / Developer | Shutdown / Cancellation Date | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hyper Scape | Ubisoft | April 28, 2022 | Battle royale FPS |
| Heroes of Newerth | Frostburn Studios | June 20, 2022 | MOBA |
| Tera | Bluehole Studio | June 30, 2022 | MMORPG |
| Project CARS 2 | EA / Slightly Mad Studios | September 21, 2022 | Racing sim |
| Google Stadia (all titles) | January 18, 2023 | Platform / all genres | |
| Battlefield Mobile | EA / Industrial Toys | January 31, 2023 | Mobile FPS |
| Hyenas (canceled) | Creative Assembly / SEGA | September 28, 2023 | Pre-launch cancellation |
| The Last of Us Online (canceled) | Naughty Dog / Sony | December 14, 2023 | Pre-launch cancellation |
| The Crew | Ubisoft | March 31, 2024 | Open-world racing |
| Tom Clancy’s The Division Heartland (canceled) | Red Storm / Ubisoft | May 15, 2024 | Pre-launch cancellation |
| Anthem | EA / BioWare | January 12, 2026 | Live-service action RPG |
| The Sims Mobile | EA / Maxis | January 20, 2026 | Mobile life simulation |
| Fortnite Ballistic + Festival Battle Stage | Epic Games | April 16, 2026 | Tactical shooter / rhythm |
| Battlefield Hardline online (PS4/XB1) | EA / Visceral Games | June 22, 2026 | FPS multiplayer |
| The Elder Scrolls: Blades | Bethesda / ZeniMax | June 30, 2026 | Mobile RPG |
Anthem’s January 2026 shutdown was particularly pointed given the timing: the game that BioWare and EA spent years attempting to rehabilitate – before finally abandoning – went permanently offline just weeks before the EU Commission’s hearing process began gaining political momentum. EA’s position as the publisher behind multiple major shutdowns in the table above makes its stance on Stop Killing Games legislation commercially significant, a point that becomes more complex in the context of EA’s ongoing $55 billion private equity buyout. The two closures dated for the back half of June 2026 – Battlefield Hardline’s online services on June 22 and The Elder Scrolls: Blades on June 30 – mean the shutdown cadence has continued right through the same fortnight in which Brussels declined to act and California’s bill reached the Senate.
California AB 1921: The Protect Our Games Act Clears the Assembly
While the EU Commission was preparing its rejection in Brussels, the campaign scored a genuine legislative victory on the other side of the Atlantic. The California State Assembly passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act (officially titled “Digital games: ordinary use”), on May 27, 2026, by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward on February 12, 2026 and directly addresses the kind of scenario that made The Crew notorious.
If enacted, AB 1921 would impose three core requirements on digital game publishers operating in California. Publishers would need to provide at least 60 days’ advance notice before delisting or terminating a game. They would be required to ensure that purchasers can continue to access the game after service ends – whether through an offline patch, alternative version, or community server option. If continued access cannot be guaranteed, publishers would be required to offer a full refund. The law would apply to digital games released or re-released on or after January 1, 2027, and would exempt free-to-play games and subscription-based titles.
As of late June 2026, the bill has advanced into the State Senate. AB 1921 was amended on June 23, 2026 and is scheduled for a Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee hearing on June 29, 2026. To become law it must clear the Senate’s committee and floor votes – and, because it has been amended in the second chamber, would return to the Assembly to concur in those changes – before reaching Governor Gavin Newsom, who would then have 12 days to sign it, allow it to become law unsigned, or veto it. The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the industry’s main US trade body, has publicly opposed the bill, arguing it would harm both game makers and players – a sign the Senate phase will face the same organized lobbying that shaped the EU outcome.
A 43-16 Assembly vote with bipartisan support demonstrates meaningful momentum – and California’s outsized influence on US technology regulation means a state law here would effectively set national industry standards. Publishers who restructure their terms of service for California consumers rarely maintain separate policies for the other 49 states. The Epic v. Google ruling forcing Play Store policy changes that applied globally provides a direct precedent for how regional legislative action reshapes platform behavior everywhere.
The contrast between Sacramento and Brussels on June 16 is striking. The EU Commission, operating with the world’s most powerful consumer protection framework behind it, declined to act. California’s legislature, acting as a state body with jurisdiction over the world’s fifth-largest economy, passed exactly the kind of bill the EU wouldn’t touch – and has kept it moving through the Senate in the weeks since. Stop Killing Games supporters were quick to note the irony: the bloc that gave the world GDPR and the Digital Services Act balked at a far more targeted consumer protection measure for gaming.
UK Parliament Precedent: A Warning Sign the Campaign Understood
The EU Commission’s outcome was not entirely unpredictable. The Stop Killing Games campaign had already run a parallel process through the UK Parliament, where a petition that closed on 14 July 2025 with 189,887 signatures gathered enough support to trigger an official parliamentary debate, held in November 2025. The outcome there was the same: the UK government confirmed it had no plans to amend consumer law on disabling video games, determining that current consumer law already provides sufficient protections while pledging to continue monitoring the issue. The UK precedent – a debate without legislative action – effectively served as a preview of the EU result.
Consumer rights advocates note that the UK and EU responses share a common structure: acknowledge the concern, reference existing law as sufficient, decline to create new obligations, and commit to vague future engagement. In both cases, industry lobbying organizations maintained that existing consumer frameworks adequately address the problem. In both cases, governments accepted that framing. The campaign drew from both outcomes in refining its legislative strategy going forward, concluding that petition-based mechanisms alone are insufficient to overcome organized industry opposition, and that the most durable progress requires direct engagement with the legislative drafting process – which is precisely the Digital Fairness Act strategy now underway.
The Digital Fairness Act: Stop Killing Games’ Next Target
The campaign’s response to the Commission’s decision was not to accept defeat. Within hours of the June 16 announcement, Stop Killing Games signaled its intention to pursue amendments to the Digital Fairness Act, an EU legislative initiative in development that addresses consumer protection in digital markets. Unlike an ECI – which asks the Commission to propose specific legislation – an amendment campaign targets the legislative drafting process directly, working with sympathetic MEPs to insert game preservation requirements into an existing legislative vehicle.
That outreach is already producing results. By late June 2026, 45 members of the European Parliament had signed an inquiry calling for legislative action on game preservation – a figure the campaign points to as evidence it can move forward through Parliament regardless of the Commission’s stance. Ross Scott put it bluntly: with that level of parliamentary backing, the movement is now “in a position to pass legislation on this even without the Commission’s blessing.” Representatives across multiple parliamentary groups have signalled openness to writing game-preservation rules into the planned Digital Fairness Act.
This approach carries real advantages, but also a longer timeline. The Digital Fairness Act is already on the EU legislative calendar, meaning policy groundwork is laid and there is an existing parliamentary process to engage. MEPs sympathetic to game preservation – including those who participated in the April 16 hearing – can introduce amendments during committee review. The trade-off is that an amendment must ultimately survive the Council–Parliament trilogue, a process expected to run across the remainder of 2026 and into 2027. The Commission’s June 16 Communication, while rejecting the ECI’s specific demand, explicitly committed to developing an industry code of conduct by end 2026, which creates a public record against which later legislative proposals can be measured.
The campaign also retains significant political capital. 1.3 million verified European signatures is a democratic signal that cannot be dismissed, and the 45-MEP inquiry shows that signal has translated into named parliamentary allies. The Commission’s stated commitment to raise awareness of consumer rights, while substantively weak, at least formally acknowledges the problem. And if the voluntary code of conduct process stalls or produces inadequate standards – as critics expect – the failure will be publicly documented and available to legislators seeking to justify stronger intervention.
What Consumers Can Do Under Existing EU Law
The Commission’s response emphasized that existing EU consumer law is not entirely toothless. The Directive on digital content and digital services (Directive 2019/770) requires that digital games conform with the contract and with what consumers could reasonably expect. When a publisher shuts down an online game, consumers who purchased it may – in theory – have grounds to claim a proportionate refund under this directive, on the basis that the digital content is no longer conformant with the purchase agreement.
In practice, enforcing this right requires individual consumers to pursue claims through national consumer protection authorities or courts. Publishers’ terms of service typically disclaim any obligation to maintain game access and characterize purchases as licenses rather than ownership – making the legal landscape murky. The commission’s commitment to work with consumer organizations to raise awareness may generate more proactive enforcement activity from national bodies, even without new legislation. Consumers can also file complaints directly with national consumer protection agencies when a purchased game becomes inaccessible without notice or refund – a route that, while cumbersome, is legally available under the existing directive.
Legislative Status: Stop Killing Games Around the World
| Jurisdiction | Initiative | Status (late June 2026) | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | Stop Destroying Videogames ECI | Rejected – June 16, 2026 | No legal obligation; voluntary code of conduct by end 2026 |
| United Kingdom | UK Parliament petition (189,887 signatures) and debate | Debated Nov 2025; no action taken | Government found existing law sufficient; no amendments planned |
| California, USA | AB 1921 Protect Our Games Act | In Senate – amended June 23; committee hearing June 29, 2026 | Passed Assembly 43–16; awaiting Senate committee & floor votes, then Governor |
| Australia | Government petition | Accepted for signing; outcome pending | Timeline unclear; no vote yet |
| European Union | Digital Fairness Act amendment | Campaign phase; 45 MEPs signed inquiry call | No scheduled vote; targets 2026–2027 trilogue |
Market Context: Digital Ownership in the Live-Service Era
The Stop Killing Games debate sits within a broader industry shift that has made game ownership increasingly abstract. The share of game revenue derived from live-service, always-online, and subscription-based titles has grown substantially across the past decade. Games that once shipped as standalone products now routinely require server authentication to launch, continuous connectivity to access features, or active publisher support to remain functional. The economic logic for publishers is clear: service-based models enable recurring revenue, microtransaction monetization, and long-term engagement that standalone sales cannot match.
The problem is that this shift has occurred largely without corresponding consumer protection evolution. The platform ecosystem – dominated by Steam, Epic Games Store, PlayStation Store, and Xbox – is built around a license-not-ownership model that gives publishers broad authority to terminate access. Platform-level antitrust pressure is also reshaping digital distribution, with implications for game preservation. The Valve Steam antitrust lawsuit currently heading to trial raises questions about whether dominant platform operators have obligations to consumers that extend beyond what publisher ToS dictates. Similar pressures have reshaped app store economics through the Epic v. Google ruling.
The DRM-free model championed by platforms like GOG represents one structural alternative: games distributed without digital rights management that remain playable regardless of publisher server status or platform continuity. But DRM-free distribution remains a small market segment, and most major publishers are unwilling to sacrifice the control that authentication systems provide. The broader question of what consumers actually own when they buy digital media – a debate that plays out across games, ebooks, and digital films – is one that regulators globally are increasingly being forced to confront. The Steam vs GOG ownership debate captures the specific gaming dimension of this question.
5 Predictions for Game Preservation Policy
1. California’s AB 1921 becomes law before the EU’s code of conduct is finalized. Having cleared the Assembly 43-16 and reached its first State Senate committee hearing on June 29, the bill is on track to be considered in the 2026 legislative session. If it passes the Senate and Assembly concurrence and receives a gubernatorial signature, it will create the world’s first jurisdiction with mandatory game preservation requirements for new titles – likely before the EU’s voluntary process has produced any binding standards. A California law would immediately pressure other US states and federal legislators to act.
2. The EU voluntary code of conduct produces disclosure requirements, not preservation mandates. Based on the Commission’s framing and its deference to IP rights concerns, the most likely outcome of the end-2026 industry engagement is a code requiring publishers to disclose end-of-life timelines and communicate existing consumer rights at point of purchase – possibly alongside voluntary archiving partnerships with cultural institutions. Mandatory offline patching or private server requirements will not be included. This will satisfy neither consumer advocates nor the campaign’s 1.3 million supporters, and will likely accelerate the push for Digital Fairness Act amendments.
3. At least two high-profile game shutdowns in H2 2026 will intensify legislative pressure. With Battlefield Hardline (PS4/XB1) shutting down June 22 and The Elder Scrolls: Blades closing June 30, the shutdown cadence shows no sign of slowing. High-profile closures of games with large nostalgia bases – particularly any EA or Ubisoft title with significant recent sales – will generate media coverage and public pressure on legislators in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
4. Stop Killing Games converts its 45-MEP inquiry into at least one formal Digital Fairness Act amendment by Q4 2026. The campaign’s existing political relationships, established through the ECI process and the April European Parliament hearing and now formalized by the 45-MEP inquiry call, position it to find legislative sponsors for a targeted amendment. The IMCO and PETI committee MEPs who engaged with the April 16 hearing are the most likely sponsors. Whether any such amendment can survive committee review and the Council–Parliament trilogue against organized publisher lobbying remains the central uncertainty.
5. Platform-level obligations will prove more tractable than publisher mandates. The most durable game preservation protections may ultimately come not through direct publisher requirements but through platform obligations – requiring Steam, the PlayStation Store, Xbox, and the Epic Games Store to maintain access to purchased titles or provide refunds when publishers withdraw support. Platform operators, already under antitrust scrutiny from the Valve Steam antitrust case and post-Epic regulatory attention, may find it strategically preferable to adopt voluntary platform-level preservation policies than to face legislative mandates layered on top of existing regulatory pressure.
Related Coverage
More on Gaming Platforms and Consumer Rights
- GOG Goes Independent: $25M Buyout Reshapes DRM-Free Gaming [2026]
- Valve Steam Antitrust: $6B Cut Heads to Trial [2026]
- Epic v. Google: Play Store Opens, 30% Cut Dead [2026]
- EA Goes Private: $55B Buyout, Largest LBO Ever [2026]
- Steam vs GOG 2026: 30% Cut vs DRM-Free Ownership
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the EU Commission decide about Stop Killing Games?
On June 16, 2026, the European Commission formally responded to the Stop Destroying Videogames European Citizens’ Initiative. The Commission stated it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after publishers end commercial support, citing existing intellectual property rights as the primary barrier. Instead, it committed to initiating an industry code of conduct process by the end of 2026 and to raising awareness of existing consumer rights under the EU’s digital content directive.
How many signatures did the Stop Killing Games petition collect?
The Stop Destroying Videogames ECI collected 1,294,188 verified statements of support, submitted to the European Commission on January 26, 2026. This figure represents approximately 89% of the raw signature count after the standard verification process. It significantly exceeds the one million threshold required to compel the Commission to formally examine the proposal.
What is California’s Protect Our Games Act?
AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act (officially “Digital games: ordinary use”), was passed by the California State Assembly on May 27, 2026 by a vote of 43 to 16. Introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward, it would require digital game publishers to provide 60 days’ notice before shutting down a game, ensure continued access or offer a full refund, and apply to games released or re-released on or after January 1, 2027. Free-to-play and subscription-based games are excluded. As of late June 2026 the bill is in the State Senate: it was amended on June 23 and is set for a Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee hearing on June 29, 2026, after which it still needs Senate and Assembly approval and Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature.
What game started the Stop Killing Games campaign?
The campaign’s most prominent catalyst was Ubisoft’s shutdown of The Crew in March 2024. Ubisoft terminated server support for the open-world racing game and did not issue an offline patch, rendering the game completely unplayable for all purchasers. Ubisoft also removed the game from players’ libraries without providing automatic refunds. The Crew case is cited as the defining example of the practice Stop Killing Games seeks to prohibit.
Why did the EU Commission refuse to mandate game preservation?
The Commission cited intellectual property rights as the primary obstacle. Under EU copyright law, publishers retain exclusive rights over their games’ source code and assets even after ending commercial support. Mandating offline patches or private server enablement would compel publishers to deploy copyrighted material in ways they did not choose, which the Commission found disproportionate given existing IP frameworks. It also pointed to confidential business information, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity or safety risks. The Commission further argued that existing EU consumer protection directives already provide remedies, including potential proportionate refunds, and that active enforcement of these rights could incentivize publishers to extend game lifespans without new legislation.
What is the Digital Fairness Act and how does Stop Killing Games plan to use it?
The Digital Fairness Act is an EU legislative initiative in development addressing consumer protection in digital markets. Following the Commission’s June 16 rejection of the ECI’s demands, Stop Killing Games announced it would push for game preservation requirements to be included as amendments during the Act’s drafting and committee review phase. By late June 2026, 45 members of the European Parliament had signed an inquiry calling for legislative action, which the campaign says puts it “in a position to pass legislation on this even without the Commission’s blessing.” This approach works through the parliamentary process rather than the ECI mechanism and must survive the Council–Parliament trilogue expected across 2026–2027 – a more technically demanding path than petition-based advocacy, but one that, if successful, would result in binding legislation rather than a voluntary code of conduct.
Can consumers get refunds for games that have been shut down?
In principle, yes. The EU Directive on digital content and digital services (Directive 2019/770) provides consumers with remedies when digital content does not conform with the contract or with reasonable consumer expectations, which may include proportionate refunds. In practice, enforcing these rights typically requires filing complaints with national consumer protection authorities or pursuing individual claims through courts, since publishers’ terms of service generally disclaim obligations to maintain game access. The Commission has committed to working with consumer organizations to raise awareness of these rights, though enforcement remains at the discretion of national bodies rather than the Commission itself.
