Home
News
Assemblymember Chris Ward anticipates that the legislation, if enacted, could trigger a "California Effect" situation.
The primary legislator behind the California bill supported by the Stop Killing Games campaign, currently advancing through the state's legislature, has acknowledged that guaranteeing its enforcement will likely be challenging. Nonetheless, Assemblymember Chris Ward is optimistic that if approved, the bill—which would require publishers decommissioning servers for online games to offer full refunds or a playable version of the game independent of those servers as part of the process—will have repercussions that reach beyond California's borders.
Assemblymember Ward shared these remarks during an AMA session held this week on the Stop Killing Games campaign's Reddit page, as the AB 1921 bill (also known as the Protect Our Games Act among proponents) undergoes examination by the California Senate's privacy committee.
"While AB 1921 would only apply in California, its influence could extend beyond our borders through what's known as the 'California Effect,'" Ward wrote in reply to a user inquiring whether bills like AB 1921 might be introduced in other US states. "Given that California is such a vast market, companies frequently opt to modify their practices nationwide instead of creating state-specific systems.
"We've also observed other states—and occasionally international entities like the EU—taking inspiration from California's consumer protection initiatives. For instance, our efforts to tackle surveillance pricing spurred similar proposals in other states, and I'm continuing that work this year with AB 2564. Similarly, there's a genuine chance AB 1921 could act as a template for other legislatures if it demonstrates effectiveness here."
Several individuals asked Ward about the feasibility of enforcing AB 1921 if it becomes law, and the potential penalties for companies that violate it. "You are absolutely correct, this won't be an easy matter to manage," Ward responded to a user who had suggested in their question that enforcing the bill would be a "complicated prospect."
"Enforcement is always where robust legislation is either validated or undermined," the politician added in a separate reply to another user querying the issue. "The goal here is to ensure that the attorney general's office and local district attorneys are fully informed about the matter and possess the resources to enforce the law effectively, particularly given the scale and influence of the gaming industry in California. In practice, enforcement and penalties escalate based on the severity and extent of the violation. Larger companies that commit more significant, intentional violations would incur greater penalties, while enforcement efforts would concentrate on addressing systemic non-compliance rather than isolated incidents."
Thus, it would fall to figures like current California attorney general Rob Bonta to pursue publishers who fail to comply with the law. Such officials taking legal action against game publishers and platform holders has ample precedent, with a recent example being New York state attorney general Letitia James's lawsuit against Valve for alleged breaches of gambling laws through the use of loot boxes in games like Counter-Strike 2 and Team Fortress 2. As of this writing, Valve is contesting that lawsuit.
For now, AB 1921 remains in progress, with a similar SKG-backed EU petition advocating for stronger consumer protections regarding game server shutdowns also navigating the legislative process.