California's AB 1921 Passes State Assembly, Heads to Senate for Final Review
- Sagar Mankar
- May 29
- 4 min read
Key Highlights:
AB 1921 passed the California Assembly by a 43-16 vote
Bill aims to protect consumers when digital games lose online support
Publishers would be required to give at least 60 days' notice before shutdowns
Players must be informed about affected features and service end dates
Companies would need to provide an offline version, an independent patch, or a full refund
Free-to-play games and subscription services like Game Pass are exempt
The bill would apply to qualifying games sold after January 1, 2027
Next stop is the California State Senate, where at least 21 votes are needed for passage
If approved, the bill would then move to the California Governor for final consideration
California's AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, has cleared a major legislative hurdle. On May 29, Assembly member Chris Ward announced in a video that the bill passed the California State Assembly floor by a vote of 43 to 16, and is now heading to the California State Senate.
Assembly member Chris Ward introduced the Protect Our Games Act to the California Assembly in February 2026, and the bill has since navigated through the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Appropriations Committee before reaching the full Assembly floor.
What Does AB 1921 Actually Require?
The bill lays out clear obligations for game operators. Here is a breakdown of the key provisions:
Advance notice requirements (60 days before services end):
Operators must notify both current purchasers and prospective buyers, through in-game notifications and on the operator's official website
The exact date services will cease must be communicated
A complete list of services that will no longer be provided
All game features that will no longer be available
Any known security risks arising from the cessation of services
Clear information on how a purchaser can continue using the game, or obtain a refund
On the day services end, operators must provide at least one of the following:
A version of the digital game that functions entirely without the operator's services
A patch or update that enables the existing version to run independently
A full refund equal to the complete purchase price
After services have ended:
Operators are prohibited from selling, leasing, or distributing any version of the game that still requires their services to function
The bill also makes clear what it does not cover. Subscription-based services like Game Pass or PlayStation Plus are exempt, as are free-to-play titles. Games that are permanently made available for offline download at the time of purchase are also excluded.
The bill applies specifically to digital games first sold or substantially re-released in California after January 1, 2027, and would be enforced by the California Attorney General or district attorneys.
What Happens Next for AB 1921?
With the Assembly vote behind it, the bill now moves to the California State Senate. From here, it can go through further policy committee hearings and potential amendments. The Senate needs a minimum of 21 votes to pass it, after which it heads to the Governor of California. The Governor then has 12 days to sign it into law, let it pass without a signature, or veto it.
This is also the stage where public voices can genuinely make a difference. Ward has specifically appealed to gamers, not just industry lobbyists, to make their voices heard. California residents can find their State Senator at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and submit support for the bill. Those outside California can still write to the Chair of the Senate Privacy Committee through the state's public contact portal.
AB 1921 is still a long way from becoming law, but it has cleared one of the bigger hurdles. How the Senate responds will say a lot about how seriously California is taking the question of what it actually means to buy a digital game.
What Are the Industry's Concerns?
Not everyone is on board with this. Earlier this month, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which includes major companies like Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Epic Games, publicly opposed AB 1921, arguing that the bill will ultimately harm the gaming industry. The ESA contends that if AB 1921 passes, developers will have to spend more time and money maintaining infrastructure for older games instead of focusing on new developments.
In a statement, the ESA said that many games rely on constantly evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems, and that AB 1921 could force developers to divert limited time and resources to maintaining old systems instead of creating new games, features, and technologies.
"AB 1921 is fundamentally flawed," ESA declared, urging California lawmakers to vote no on the bill. "The bill is based on a false premise: that consumers 'own' digital games with permanent access," the ESA continues. "That is not how software works, games are licensed, not sold as unrestricted property."
Ward, however, has pushed back on that framing. He has emphasized that the proposal's core is about consumer fairness, stating that when California consumers pay a significant fee to purchase or register a digital game, they should be able to draw a line on what they can reasonably expect to receive.
The Stop Killing Games campaign, which publicly announced its support for the bill in April, has also responded directly to the ESA's objections. SKG organizer Moritz Katzner made it clear that the bill is far narrower than critics suggest.
"AB 1921 is narrow. It applies to paid games going forward and gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser," Katzner wrote. "The industry wants people to think this is a demand for eternal server support, with endless costs and complications. It isn’t. It’s much simpler: If a company sells people a paid game, it should not be able to destroy the game’s ordinary use later without notice or remedy."
The ESA has a history of opposing game preservation efforts. In 2024, the organization's lawyers argued against a DMCA exemption that would have allowed libraries and museums to offer remote access to games. An ESA spokesperson stated at a US Copyright Office hearing that there was no combination of limitations its members would support for remote access, citing concerns about recreational use rather than research. The Copyright Office ultimately sided with the ESA in that case.
