Stop Killing Games Calls Out Lobbying Access to EU Officials Before Critical June 16 Deadline

Key Highlights:

• Stop Killing Games has released an open letter aimed at industry lobbying groups that are holding a key dialogue in Brussels on June 3, with European Commission members and game publishers CEOs also in attendance.

• The dialogue comes just before the European Commission is set to respond to the initiative on June 16.

• The campaign argues that organizers of this dialogue, Video Games Europe (VGE), have incorrectly portrayed its proposal as a demand for "permanent" online server support, when its actual goal is to ensure games remain functional or have "reasonable" end-of-life solutions after official support ends.

• Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot is also attending the dialogue.

• Ubisoft’s decision to shut down The Crew stands out as one of the major moments that sparked the SKG movement.

  
  

The Stop Killing Games campaign has published an open letter accusing industry lobbying groups of exercising undue influence over the European Commission, just two weeks before the body is expected to formally respond to their European Citizens' Initiative (ECI).

On June 3, 2026, Video Games Europe (VGE) and the European Games Developer Federation (EGDF) are hosting an "invitation-only" event in Brussels titled "Games in Europe: Built Here. Played Globally." The event brought together Europe's top gaming industry CEOs and key EU decision-makers to discuss the regulatory and economic future of games in Europe. Among those present were executives from studios and publishers including SYBO Games, Xbox, Supercell, King, and Guerrilla Games, alongside senior European Commission officials.

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot was also listed as a participant. That detail did not go unnoticed.

Why Does Guillemot's Presence Matter?

Ubisoft is not just another games company in this conversation. The French publisher made headlines when it shut down The Crew, a paid online game, without giving players any way to continue playing it. That decision became one of the defining moments that gave the Stop Killing Games movement its momentum in 2024. Since then, Ubisoft has faced legal action from French consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir over the shutdown and remains under scrutiny from consumer protection authorities in both France and Australia.

So the fact that Guillemot was sharing a room with senior Commission officials just thirteen days before the June 16 response deadline is exactly what prompted Stop Killing Games to speak up.

VGE Is Misdirecting the Core Issue

The Stop Killing Games campaign has more than 1.2 million verified supporters across the EU. Its core demand is straightforward. It asks that games sold or licensed to consumers remain in a functional state, and that publishers provide "reasonable means" for continued operation before remotely disabling them. It does not ask for online services to be maintained indefinitely.

Yet according to the campaign's open letter, Video Games Europe has consistently misrepresented that position. VGE's own position paper (published on July 10, 2025) opens by claiming it is "not clear" what Stop Killing Games seeks to achieve, and then reframes the demand entirely, presenting it as a requirement to provide online services forever or to maintain mandatory private servers. The campaign calls this substitution straightforward "misdirection."

VGE claimed that the "decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly, and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable." The statement also claimed that "many titles are designed from the ground up to be online-only" and that implementing such requirements would "curtail developer choice" by making these video games "prohibitively expensive to create."

It then structures the rest of its paper around that replacement, taking a stance against “indefinite server support,” “permanent use,” releasing “game code or server binaries,” as well as concerns over intellectual property risks, player safety risks, private‑server competition, and third‑party licensing issues.

"Some of those may be real issues for specific technical solutions. They are not the proposal," SKG responded. "This is the core misrepresentation: VGE takes a flexible demand for responsible end-of-life planning, turns it into a demand for indefinite support and private-server obligations, and then declares that version disproportionate, unsafe, and legally impossible. That is not engaging with the initiative. That is rewriting it before answering it. That is misdirection."

How Has California Handled the Same Issue?

While Brussels deliberates, California has already moved into action. Assembly Bill 1921, known as the Protect Our Games Act, would prohibit publishers from disabling customer copies of video games without either providing a means to continue running them or offering a refund to affected players. The bill has just passed the California State Assembly and is now heading to the state Senate.

What is particularly relevant here is how California lawmakers dealt with the same lobbying arguments that have circulated in Europe. The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) argued that the bill assumed an "unrestricted ownership interest" on the part of consumers. The Assembly Committee analysis rejected that framing outright, clarifying that AB 1921 "does not contain language" suggesting that. The bill focuses on "ordinary use," and the proposed remedy is simply notice followed by either a playable version or a refund.

In contrast, the European Commission has had more time, more meetings, and clearer explanations, yet some parts still seem to be going in circles over whether the issue even needs action.

Members of the European Parliament from multiple political groups have also raised the issue in recent plenary session. MEP Markéta Gregorová of Greens/EFA noted that Commission representative Mr. Abbamonte had been repeating "the arguments of a handful of the largest publishers almost word for word" at public hearings, arguments that "do not reflect how games actually work" and "do not reflect what these citizens are asking for."

MEP Tiemo Wölken of S&D went further, telling the Commission plainly that "you say you see the problem, but you do not offer any solution."

Those are sharp words. They suggest growing frustration within the Parliament over what many see as Commission inaction on a consumer rights issue that has already crossed the threshold of democratic legitimacy through the Citizens' Initiative process.

The Stop Killing Games campaign closed its open letter with a pointed summary of where things stand. "When collectively millions of consumers, many publishers and developers, a majority of EU Parliament, and now the state of California all recognize this is a problem that needs solving, the sensible thing to do is work towards finding a solution."

The details of the June 3 Brussels dialogue have not yet been fully revealed publicly.