Stop Killing Games Reaches the European Parliament Floor: Everything Said in the Strasbourg Plenary Session

Key Highlight

• The Stop Killing Games movement was officially debated in the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on May 21

• Multiple Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from different political groups supported stronger consumer protections for games

• Lawmakers argued that consumers should not lose access to games they legally purchased after servers shut down

• Several MEPs compared video games to books, films, and cars, saying companies should not remotely destroy purchased products

• The debate focused heavily on digital ownership, game preservation, and publisher responsibility

• Several speakers emphasized that video games are part of Europe’s cultural heritage and should be preserved

• One MEP joked that lawmakers should not wait “as long as GTA 6” for legislation

• Some even say that “wokeness and aggressive monetization” are also ruining video games.

• The European Commission representative responded cautiously, noting that consumers do have some protections under current law, but admitted the specific issue at hand needs closer scrutiny.

• The European Commission is expected to provide an official response on June 16, 2026

Image: European Parliament

The Stop Killing Games campaign took its biggest step yet on May 21, when the European Parliament held a full plenary session in Strasbourg, France, dedicated to the Stop Destroying Video Games European Citizens' Initiative (ECI).

Unlike the committee hearing held on April 16 in Brussels, this was the main floor of the Parliament, where most of the 720 Members of the European Parliament come together in one hall. Discussion made at this level carries real legislative weight, and the fact that the initiative reached this stage at all is a significant milestone.

The April 16 event was a public hearing, a smaller and more specialised meeting organised by individual parliamentary committees where experts, organisers, and stakeholders are invited to present their case and answer questions from committee members. The plenary session is something else entirely. It is the most formal and consequential setting in the Parliament, and it drew contributions from MEPs across virtually every major political group.

The initiative reached this stage after collecting over 1.29 million verified signatures across EU member states, well above the one million threshold required for official parliamentary scrutiny. The ECI was formally submitted in February 2026. Adding to the momentum, earlier this month, European Commissioner Michael McGrath confirmed that the European Commission will issue its official response to the initiative on June 16, 2026. Here is everything that was said on the floor.

Committee Rapporteurs Set the Stage

Anna Cavazzini, representing the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO):

"When you buy a toaster, and it breaks, you often cannot repair it. Spare parts are not available, manuals are not accessible, and necessary software updates are not provided. And the result is that consumers are forced to throw away a product that they could have easily been using longer. And I am so proud that we found a legislative solution to it. 'The Right to Repair,' which obliges producers to repair their own products, and gives consumers several tools to repair their purchases themselves. But this logic of extending the lifetime of physical products does not apply to video games. And this is the core of the European Citizens' Initiative we are talking about today. When you buy a video game that is connected to the publisher online, you actually purchase a license for using it. A license defined by the publisher that potentially 'can end at any time for any reason,' just that you are not aware of it. And if the publisher then disconnects a video game after notification, not only the support ends, it is literally dead and non-repairable for you, no longer playable for the consumer. So over 1.2 million Europeans demand us to put an end to this forced and untimely death of video games.... As the internal market committee, we are working hard to ban a practice from the single market that forces consumers to buy new products to the detriment of their wallets and the planet. Planned obsolescence is defined as the deliberate design of a product with an artificially limited useful life. And this logic also needs to apply to video games in EU consumer law. I sincerely hope and urge the European Commission to come up with a solution on how the specific situation of a licensing model can ensure the same level of consumer protection for gamers, a solution to avoid the unknown arbitrary end of the gaming fun and a long life to what has long become a part of our culture."

Ilhan Kyuchyuk, representing the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI):

"Video games are not just entertainment. They are art, innovation, and a vital part of our cultural landscape. Our public hearing allowed us to explore how the EU can better balance the protection of intellectual property with the rights of consumers and creators, and how digital ownership can evolve to reflect the realities of a fast-changing industry. The Stop Destroying Video Games initiative, backed by nearly 1.3 million citizens, highlights a real problem. Users lose access to games they have paid for, sometimes even without a warning. Stronger protection for consumer rights is needed in this sector. The initiative calls for publishers who sell or license video games to ensure that those games are actually functional and playable for a longer period, with no remote shutdowns unless they first provide consumers with viable means to continue playing. But we must also recognise that publishers, especially small startups, depend on sustainable business models to keep creating. They often struggle with rising costs, fragmenting markets, and piracy risks. Several priorities emerge from our hearing. First, fair access to players coupled with stronger transparency and information obligations for consumers. Second, protection for publishers. Third, clear rules for preservation and achieving solutions. Fourth, a level playing field. This is all about trust. Trust in the European creative industry driving jobs and culture, but also trust in consumer rights that actually work."

Bogdan Rzońca, representing the Committee on Petitions (PETI):

"Citizens can participate directly in the European democratic process, contribute to the European legislative debate, and call on the Commission to consider taking action in areas falling within the competences of the European Union. The collection of more than one million verified signatures across several member states demonstrated the strong engagement of European citizens on these issues. From the perspective of the Committee on Petitions, this initiative reflects concerns increasingly raised by European citizens regarding digital products and consumer rights, particularly in situations where legally purchased video games become partially or completely unplayable following the shutdown of servers or the termination of online support by publishers. The organizers are calling on the European Commission to examine whether EU legislation should provide safeguards ensuring that video games remain functional even after the end of their commercial life cycle, without imposing an obligation on publishers to provide unlimited technical support. This debate goes beyond the video games sector itself. It concerns consumer protection, transparency, and citizen trust in the EU digital single market. The Committee on Petitions encourages the European Commission to respond by considering concrete measures, including where appropriate legislative initiatives aimed at strengthening consumer rights in the digital environment, in order to develop proportionate solutions that ensure both innovation and a high level of consumer protection throughout the European Union."

The European Commission Responds

Apostolos Tzitzikostas, representing the European Commission from the Mobility and Transport department, acknowledged the scale and importance of the issue while stopping short of making specific legislative commitments.

"Video games are a leading creative industry. Its revenues are estimated at 170 billion euros globally and around 22 billion in the EU alone. This makes the video game industry worth seven times the music industry. Playing video games is a regular pastime for three in every four European citizens. The issue at stake in this ECI is the changing nature of video games. Increasingly they work as services relying on the game publisher's support. The publishers can, and as experience shows do, stop supporting their games. This prevents players from playing them further even though they may have already paid for them. And this is a complex issue with several implications beyond EU copyright law and consumer rights. It is also about our digital heritage and the sustainable evolution of digital business models."

He confirmed that work is underway.

"Commissioner McGrath has taken good note of these positions and everything that was said, and we are now examining the ECI and preparing a reply. We are not yet in a position to issue detailed comments on this initiative. Nevertheless, I would like to highlight the importance of fair and transparent conditions. As European consumers, gamers should be entitled to enjoy the digital services they have paid for as provided in their contract and in accordance with their reasonable expectations. We also agree that the European video games industry stands to gain from innovating and adapting business models in a way that meets consumer expectations. At the same time, we must highlight the complexity of the issue at stake. As part of our assessment, we will also examine how existing rules apply and whether they would require further clarifications. The Commission will then finalise its reply in the form of a communication to be presented before the summer."

Political Groups Take the Floor

Pablo Arias Echeverria of the European People's Party:

"This is not just a marginal or symbolic movement. This is a movement of consumers, developers, and citizens who have been facing this problem in different ways... The European video game industry is an innovative, creative industry of strategic importance for Europe. We must therefore protect it and ensure that it is not exposed to disproportionate or abusive practices regarding either the businesses or consumers. We are aware of the fact that there are technical difficulties, costs, and challenges in terms of intellectual property, cybersecurity, or the maintenance of infrastructure. For these reasons, Europe has to act in a balanced way via dialogue with legal certainty. We should not be imposing additional burdens or unnecessary obligations. So we have to look for proportionate solutions which will enable us to avoid the fact that video games become suddenly obsolete without viable alternatives for users. Commissioner McGrath has maintained contacts with those promoting the initiative. We welcome that in his proposal he focuses on one key question: is European legislation sufficient if properly applied, or do we need to develop a new legislative framework? I think we have to listen carefully, then act in a proportionate way. Europe has already led consumer protection in the digital world. We should do this once again to ensure we have an innovative, strong, and competitive industry as a result. The European People's Party would of course be delighted to work with the Commission in an effort to find balanced, effective solutions serving the interests both of consumers and the European video games industry. Maintaining access to video games is also part of maintaining our culture and our digital heritage in Europe."

Sandra Gómez López of the Socialists and Democrats:

"The video game sector is a huge economic sector and millions of people are involved in it, not only as a means of entertainment but also as a creative industry. That is why we need to be concerned and look at how certain businesses use unfair, opaque licenses. They shut down video games remotely which consumers had already paid for, so people cannot continue to use them. The S&D believes that this needs to change, and Commissioner, we would like to see a revision of intellectual property rules in relation to the directive on copyright in the single market. I would also like to speak about protection of minors. This is something that needs to be addressed in the future Digital Fairness Act. We need to ensure there are limits for abusive activity and also impact assessments on games which are targeted at young children. Our cultural heritage is important in the digital sector and we need to make sure young people are at the heart of this debate."

Piotr Müller of the European Conservatives and Reformists:

"I do not think anyone in this chamber doubts the fact that we should protect consumer rights, and the European Citizens' Initiative on video games is a great example of how citizens can genuinely try to shape legislation in Europe. The problem of access to games that have been bought is a real problem. When servers are arbitrarily turned off, consumers lose access to digital assets they have honestly paid for, and that strikes at trust in the single market. That is why I would like to express my support to the gamers who are working towards regulation in the digital world. We support this initiative. But at the same time, I would like to say we need to be cautious not to overregulate the market. The games market in Europe still needs to be able to develop so that the European sector can continue to grow. So I call on the Commission to be open to this initiative but to be pragmatic in their approach."

Nikola Minchev of Renew Europe:

"Today, a video game can easily cost over 70 euros or more. Imagine paying for a game only for the publisher to switch it off forever a couple of months later. No access, no ownership, gone. Most people would call that unfair. And this is not only about consumer rights. Video games are also about culture. They build communities, develop creativity, develop skills, and form part of Europe's digital cultural heritage. When you buy a book or a board game, you do not expect it to disappear overnight. Why should we accept that in the digital world? We know that technical solutions exist. Some games continue working even after official support ends. It is about keeping games playable, about responsibility towards consumers. They deserve transparency and legal certainty. This is why the Commission should look for a balanced solution for consumers, publishers, and game developers, and address this gap in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act."

Markéta Gregorová of the Greens/EFA group:

"Let me be clear about what this initiative asks. When a company ends support for a game that people have already bought and paid for, it must leave that game in a working state rather than reaching into our devices and switching it off. It does not ask for free service forever. It does not ask for endless updates. It asks that what we paid for cannot be deliberately destroyed. So I am happy to hear that you take it seriously, Commissioner. However, at the last three public hearings, a Commission representative repeated the arguments of a handful of the largest publishers almost word for word: that always-online is simply a technical necessity, that this is really a copyright question, that consumer rights must somehow be removed for consumer safety. Dear Commission, these arguments do not reflect how games actually work, and they do not reflect what these citizens are asking for. Players have kept Counter-Strike and Minecraft running on their own servers for over a decade, which means that the only thing standing between a paid-for game and its destruction is not technology. It is a business decision. If the Commission really believes these arguments, then buying is not owning, and piracy is not stealing. And as a Pirate, last time I checked, you disagreed with those statements."

Leila Chaibi of the Left group:

"Just imagine, on a Sunday evening, you want to spend a relaxing evening at home. You sit down in front of your favourite film, which you have purchased, and suddenly the screen goes blank. The film has been deactivated remotely because it is no longer profitable. This would be unthinkable for films. But this is exactly what is happening to video games. Concord and many others. Players have paid for these and suddenly overnight they disappear. No explanation, no compensation. Theatre, graphics, music, graphic artists, composers, writers. All of those artists who have spent thousands and thousands of hours of creativity and passion have seen their work go up in a puff of smoke. This is part of our cultural heritage which is being deleted. More than one million European citizens are asking for something quite straightforward: to stop this happening. They are proposing this without any cost for publishers. For example, maintaining an offline mode means that players could keep playing the games themselves. You could set up a public library so as to ensure that abandoned games could still be played by those who love them. Colleagues, Commissioner, we have a choice to make today: defend players and creators of video games while defending our cultural heritage, or allow publisher profits to make the law. The time has come for us to act."

Milan Uhrík of the Europe of Sovereign Nations group:

"Wokeness and aggressive monetization is destroying video games. You wanted to talk about what is destroying video games here in the European Parliament. All right, I will say it loud. One thing that is definitely destroying video games is the crazy woke ideology and political correctness which is being forced into games. For example, if you want to play as a samurai, obviously we want to play as a Japanese warrior and not be forced to play as a Black warrior or female warrior, as happened recently in Assassin's Creed, or to play as a queer character without any other choice. This is an issue for players. The other thing which is destroying video games is aggressive monetization practices, never-ending microtransactions, insane pay-to-win, and gambling loot boxes like in casinos. These practices have to be stopped, as does the practice when a company shuts down game servers right after you purchase your favourite game. As a computer game player, I stand fully with other players. We want a fair game and we do not want to be cheated."

Individual MEPs Make Their Case

Marion Walsmann of European People's Party:

"When a consumer has a digital product, be it a video game or any other software, does the consumer have the right to use this product for a long time, or is the use of this product just the privilege of the developer, and therefore they can change it as they wish? The answer from European citizens is absolutely clear. People have paid and therefore they need to be able to use the products they have paid for. There is no end time for something you have purchased. It is a question of protecting people's property and fairness in the digital world. Therefore, voluntary programmes from the industry are not enough. I call on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal which will allow people to use their digital products for as long as they want, specifically in relation to video games, so that together we can build fairer rules to stop these problems and protect the rights of European consumers while avoiding any legal issues."

Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"I am speaking today not just in my capacity as an MEP, but also as the mother of three sons who, whether I like it or not, are growing up in the games world. Games are more than an industry. They are part of our cultural heritage. They are stories, pictures created by thousands of creators and artists. Games are a medium that allow young people to learn about other cultures and history, and sometimes they are more engaging than other forms of education. So we should consider games as a cultural good, protect them, and not just allow them to disappear because of market-based or technology-based decisions. Consumers should be allowed to own what they have bought, and that is why I support this initiative."

Ondřej Krutílek of European Conservatives and Reformists:

"I represent the arguments of gamers who make a living from video games and invest tens, hundreds, and perhaps even thousands of hours in them. On the other hand, I am a conservative politician who respects private enterprise, the free choice to provide goods and services, and publishers' copyrights. I think it is appropriate to discuss whether companies selling video games in the EU actually provide sufficient advance notice regarding the deactivation of video games. The gaming industry in Europe is one of the most globally competitive. We have top-notch developers and great, successful games, many of them from the Czech Republic. We should therefore focus above all on ensuring that the gaming industry has the best possible conditions for its future development."

That prompted a blue card challenge (cross-question) from Markéta Gregorová. "I understand that you are a conservative politician, and that is why you protect private property. So if you buy something, it is yours. Why do you not respect the same thing in the case of video games?"

Krutílek replied: "I believe that I do not buy a house or something physical, only a license for playing a game, and that is why I want rules that will be clear both for the producers and also for the purchasers of the licenses."

Cynthia Ní Mhurchú of Renew Europe:

"These games tell stories and they are part of our culture. There are millions of people who play these games. It is more than just entertainment. It creates friendships across countries and languages. It brings people and cultures together. It creates a community, and these are the values we celebrate in Europe. But today these games can just disappear overnight. A server may be closed down and then the games are gone. This is not fair or proper. Gamers should not be left with nothing. We need to keep these games alive. We need to listen to representatives of the sector and protect culture. When someone buys a game, they should be able to have the opportunity to play that game for as long as they wish."

Maria Ohisalo of The Greens, European Free Alliance:

"I love video games. I have been collecting them since I was a little girl. All the memories, the friendships, winning and losing together. And here is the thing: I can still play those old console games from the 90s, but many newer ones are gone. Not because they broke, but because a publisher decided to shut down a server, sometimes without even telling the players. We are talking about an industry bigger than movies. Esports draws more viewers than traditional sports right now. This is real culture and it is being deleted. If you buy something, should you not then own it? That is the idea behind the Stop Destroying Video Games initiative... We are not asking for everything. We cannot place the entire financial burden of preservation on developers, especially the smaller ones. But at the very least, games should be allowed to survive when their servers do not. That is not radical. That is the bare minimum, and I hope the Commission will follow this initiative."

Marcin Sypniewski of Europe of Sovereign Nations:

"My children play games, and that is very good if they play in moderation. They are learning creativity and they are discovering the taste of success and learning how to lose. It is a good preparation for the real world. Now, imagine if a car manufacturer suddenly turned off the engine in a car that we had bought. We could get in, but we would not be able to drive it. In the game sector, that is what is happening. Publishers are blocking products that we have already bought. It is a violation of consumer rights and we should change that... We are not suggesting that servers be financed forever, but rather they can be hosted privately."

Thomas Geisel of BSW-VG:

"I am not one of the 41 million Germans who play video games on a regular basis. But nevertheless, I do support this initiative. If you purchase a license for a video game, you clearly understand that you can play that game for as long as you want. If you buy a book, you do not expect the publisher to come around your house and take it back off your bookshelf a couple of years later. If producers and developers can decide freely when they switch their service off, then the reality is that it is the consumer, the customer, who is taking on the risk for the economic success or failure of that video game, and that is not in line with the basic understanding of ownership."

Jörgen Warborn of the EPP:

"Almost 1.3 million people across Europe have signed this initiative and that is a signal we need to take seriously. But taking it seriously also means asking the right questions. The right question is not only how do we protect consumers, because that is one of the important questions, but also how do we build a stronger European game industry. Right now Europe is competing against giants in the US and in Asia. And if we respond to this initiative with unworkable solutions, we do not help consumers. We help our competitors. Video games are complex creative works built on licensed content, online infrastructure, and third-party arrangements. Forcing companies to keep games running indefinitely or hand over source code might be a solution, but it is not the simple solution in every situation. In many cases it is technically or financially impossible and legally problematic, and it would hit smaller companies and studios hardest. What we should do instead is three things: better transparency for consumers upfront, fair notice before a game goes offline, and better conditions for European developers to grow, compete, and keep gamers engaged."

That drew a blue card from Catarina Vieira. "You spoke about the importance of defending the video game industry in Europe, and I can very much agree with that. But when we legislate for our market and our consumers, we do not just apply that legislation to European companies. We apply it to whatever companies want to operate in our market. So given that reality, would you then be open to making sure that consumer protection can go hand in hand with supporting the European video games industry?"

Warborn replied: "If we need transparency so that consumers know what they buy, then in some cases, that is not very clear today. At the same time, it is a growing industry that is important for Europe, and without the publishers and developers there will be no engagement from consumers. So we need to have both in mind and not only one of the issues, and that is how we build a strong European gaming industry and a strong community for users."

A second blue card from Tiemo Wölken pushed the question further. "What do you tell European publishers like CD Projekt Red who actively support this initiative? There are many publishers in Europe who know that they build a community and they do not want to disappoint them. They know they need customers to be happy. So what do you tell publishers from Europe who are fully supporting this initiative?"

Warborn replied: "All publishers are not the same. They have different business models and they work differently, and that is why if we do any regulation we have to take every different company into play. We have the think-small principle in the European Union when we do legislation, and that means we have to cater for not least the smallest ones. If we have too hard regulation in this area, we will not have European publishers left, and that will be at the loss of the businesses but also of the consumers."

Idoia Mendia of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"Imagine you buy an ebook and then years later you cannot read it. Someone has decided to deactivate it. This is what happens today with lots of video games. Video games are part of the daily lives of millions of households around Europe. They create talent, innovation, jobs, and creativity. They also create cultural heritage in Europe. Europe cannot allow this digital culture to disappear because it is no longer profitable. If you buy a video game, you have a right to know how long you will be able to use it and what happens if this service disappears. This debate is not against innovation or the sector. It is defending transparency, consumer rights, and digital heritage. We ask the Commission to act listening to gamers and not only the industry."

Reinier Van Lanschot of The Greens:

"As a young boy 30 years ago, the most important decision for me was Bulbasaur, Charmander, or Squirtle. I loved playing Pokemon and wanted to be the very best. 30 years later, if I go to my mom's attic, pull out my old Game Boy, and put in some new batteries, boom, Professor Oak is telling me to pick my starter. Charmander all the way. But today, too many video games will not work 30 years later. They might not even work 30 days later. Despite games being sold with no expiry date, the moment the game makers decide to shut down support, these games become unplayable. Game over. No Charmeleon. It is bad for all lovers of games. As the 1.2 million people signing this petition show, our laws and the game industry should learn something from Charizard and evolve. Stop remote disabling and keep games playable, so gamers who want to be the very best can actually catch them all."

Tiemo Wölken of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"The disabling of products can affect televisions and computers, and the right to repair is being done away with. However, this practice has been spreading to digital media in recent years. Publishers of video games are able to decide at any moment to disable access to a game which has been purchased by a consumer, despite the passion, time, and creativity which has been invested in those games and the communities built up around them. Unfortunately, this disabling is particularly widespread when a successor title is about to replace the older one. Is this practice legal? For the time being, yes, but it is completely unfair. This is why 1.3 million citizens have quite rightly called on us to act. Commissioner, I must say I am rather disappointed by what you had to say. You see the problem, but we are still lacking any suggestions as to practical action. The problem is that we seem to be viewing video games as a digital service rather than a digital product that people are passionate about. So we have to say to those passionate people: we are going to ensure that you are entitled to play this game as long as you like. You paid for it after all."

A blue card from Maria Ohisalo prompted a broader exchange. "You have just said clearly that we are talking about a cultural product. As Europeans, this is something we need to respect. It is a very competitive product as well. We export these products all around the world. Do you think museums can have a role here?"

Wölken replied: "The European cultural sector tells us, this applies to video games. We tend to forget that copyright law in its present form does not focus enough on digital reality. We saw this in recent legislative reform where we spent years talking about the need to create libraries so that users could have access to digital media, such as e-books that could be lent out. We saw that there is not much understanding for digital cultural goods. This applies to video games as well. In our legislation, we have to ensure that public libraries have a role in sharing knowledge, and video games are part of that public knowledge."

Dóra Dávid of European People's Party:

"After a long day, if you just want to switch off and play your favourite game, suddenly you see that this game is not available. Of course, you cannot expect companies to keep all these games working forever. But at least they should be able to provide for the games that have been bought to remain functional and usable. There is also another question: when you buy an online game digitally, do you buy a license alone, or do you buy the game as such? Well, most gamers agree with the second opinion, and this is clear from the European Citizens' Initiative. Consumers cannot lose access to a game that they have paid for already. Therefore, we need to very urgently clarify rights and obligations. If you buy a product, you have the right to use it. It is so simple."

Maria Grapini of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"European citizens do not use this tool enough. It is a way for European citizens to propose laws. Now we are talking about this initiative today, and I am vice president of the Parliament for the single market. We need to look at consumer protection but we need to strike a balance. Legislation exists but this sector of the economy does not fall under any of the existing laws. So Commissioner, you need to come forward with a solution. You need to respond to this European Citizens' Initiative. We talk about intellectual property, about creativity, and we always say what is illegal offline is illegal online. Therefore I fully support this initiative and we need to come forward with some legislation."

Lukas Sieper of Renew Europe:

"Europe, this is for Grain, for Beats, for Silverbolt. Because I was not only Lukas Sieper. I was the one who led men and women into battle on the fields of Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars. I commanded up to 50 players, trained twice every week, fought clan matches on the weekend, edited a community newspaper, and organised a World Cup with hundreds of players from dozens of nations. And Vilham from Beang existed only because TaleWorlds and Flying Squirrel did not sunset the game. They turned a community mod into an official DLC. They allowed community-hosted servers. They delegated admin rights to players. They supported the modding ecosystem instead of shutting it down. Vilham was lucky. I was lucky. So today I ask the Commission and my colleagues to support the ECI Stop Killing Video Games. Not only to stop killing video games, but to protect the lives that we live."

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"On one hand, we have an unfair practice. On the other hand, we also have the business model, because they are looking for new clients and new players all the time, and in some cases we can also talk about the problem of piracy. But let us not forget that there are consumer rights. There is also cultural and digital heritage and we need to find the right balance. Games that have long-term value need to be protected. And when you are thinking about minors, please carry out an impact assessment. Pay special attention to minors and how video games affect them, because they are very vulnerable and can become easily addicted."

Catarina Vieira of The Greens:

"The Commissioner said that he understands the problem and I am glad to hear that, but that the Commission is not ready to present a solution quite yet. That is okay. We have waited many years for many amazing video games to come about, and we have also sometimes waited many years for great European laws to come. I just hope we do not have to wait as long as we have been waiting for GTA 6 to see a proposal from the Commission. And today we have spoken a lot about loving video games. What we also love in this house is democracy and citizens' rights to have their needs and desires expressed. This is not just about 1.3 million signing a petition. After our committee meeting, I received dozens of emails from people saying this was the first time they watched the European Parliament speak and they agreed with us. I received emails from around the world of people saying they want to see the EU lead on this. We might not have been quoted on mainstream gaming media, but we were on the Twitch streams. We were on the subreddits. We were reaching citizens where they are. And this is really what citizens care about. So I am really proud to support this initiative and I deeply hope that the Commission will come forward with a proposal."

Kateřina Konečná of KSCM:

"The situation where you buy a product and after a time it is dead and you were not told in advance sounds like a disaster. We would hardly tolerate something like that, and yet it is the reality in the video game industry. Most video games that require a constant internet connection become completely inaccessible to players who paid for them the moment the publisher decides to shut down the servers. Even if the game has a single-player mode, it becomes inaccessible. I fully understand that when you pay for something, you want to access it, especially if you had no way of knowing that after years, months, or even weeks, you would be denied access. Video games publishers must ensure that their games remain available in some form even after the shutdown of their servers. Otherwise, they should not be allowed to keep the money."

Marcos Ros Sempere of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats:

"If you buy a book, five years later somebody cannot come to your house, take it out of your bookshelf, and destroy it so nobody can read it. If somebody wants to keep a copy of a film which was important in their life, we cannot accept that being taken away. That might seem unlikely for music or films, but this happens with video games. Video games are also part of our culture, part of our collective memory. Many people want to be able to carry on playing those games ten, twenty, thirty years later, to teach their children to play or share them with future generations. More than 1.2 million citizens are not asking for the earth. They are just asking for something reasonable: that a video game which they have purchased legally not be subject to destruction and continues to be something which can be played. This is why we have to listen to and promote this initiative. We want to see a legislative response to that."

The Commission's Closing Remarks

Apostolos Tzitzikostas wrapped up the session on behalf of the Commission.

"I would like to thank you for your very valuable contributions today, which give us plenty of valuable insights to reflect on as we are developing our analysis and our response. It has highlighted the complexity of the issue which sits at the crossroads of several public policies. This rich exchange of views also shows how European Citizens' Initiatives allow people to put the issues they care about directly on the European agenda.... We are working to present the communication at the soonest possible opportunity."

With Commissioner McGrath’s formal response scheduled for June 16, 2026, the plenary session made it clear: there’s solid, cross-party backing in the European Parliament for real action, and the Commission will be responding to over 1.29 million European citizens in just a few weeks.