Stop Killing Games has vowed to keep pushing for game preservation laws after California’s Protect Our Games Act failed to advance through a key Senate committee.
The movement has become one of the biggest consumer-rights campaigns in gaming, calling for publishers to stop selling paid online games that can later become permanently unplayable when official server support ends.
Its California bill, AB 1921, would require digital game operators to give players notice before shutting down services needed for a game’s “ordinary use,” then provide an alternate version, patch, update, or refund when those services end.
Despite passing the California State Assembly in May with a 43-16 vote, the bill stalled on June 29 in the Senate. The motion to send it to Appropriations failed 4-3, with four members not voting. The committee later granted reconsideration, meaning the bill is not fully closed, but it cannot succeed in this legislative session.
Congratulations @theESA, you’ve won this round and handed us the legitimacy boost of the century by doubling down. https://t.co/txpbpKNtCz pic.twitter.com/8V31B7w5Qv
— Stop Killing Games Official (@StopKilingGames) June 30, 2026
Stop Killing Games says ESA fight proves movement is gaining ground
Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has framed the result as proof that the campaign has become a serious threat to the gaming industry’s biggest lobbying groups.
“This was our first attempt, in our first year, in the United States, with a U.S. budget of zero dollars,” a Stop Killing Games volunteer wrote in a Reddit post after the hearing. “No paid staff in California. No war chest. No in-person lobbying operation.”
The post added that the campaign still “pushed a consumer-rights bill through the entire State Assembly” and was “only three votes away from this becoming law.”
The hearing also drew major backlash after ESA VP Jennifer Gibbons argued against private servers being used as a way to keep games playable after official support ends. During the hearing, Gibbons described private servers as “illegal” and said the ESA considers them piracy, comments that quickly went viral.
Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
Stop Killing Games backs California law that will force devs to preserve games after shut down
Industry lobby says Minecraft community servers are illegal
byu/Mr_Presidentle inStopKillingGames
The ESA later clarified its position in a statement to Dexerto, saying: “Private servers that host or distribute copyrighted game content without authorization infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers.”
However, the backlash has continued. Stop Killing Games posted on X, “Congratulations @theESA, you’ve won this round and handed us the legitimacy boost of the century by doubling down.”
The creator behind the Stop Killing Games campaign also reposted criticism from Minecraft creator Markus “Notch” Persson, who said he was “not part of either any more,” but called the ESA’s actions “incredibly scummy.”
“I did not wish for my work to be used against people,” Notch wrote. “This is borderline evil.”
This is the level of resistance SKG has been facing the whole time. I am impressed the ESA went as far as to call private servers illegal outright, with no qualifiers. Thankfully progress is better in EU Parliament than California, so not ALL government buys straight up lies.
— Accursed Farms (@accursedfarms) July 1, 2026
Accursed Farms responded by saying the private server argument showed “the level of resistance” the campaign has faced, while praising the ESA for making the issue clearer to the public.
In a separate reply to a user who said the campaign would never matter, the official Stop Killing Games account pushed back, “That’s not the attitude that got us nearly 1.3 million signatures in the EU, or forced one of the most powerful trade groups in entertainment to spend real money and effort to try to stop us in California.”
“We’re just getting started,” the post added.
The organization now says it plans to return in the next legislative session with funding, an in-person lobbying presence, and a wider list of supporting developers and organizations. The group has also said it intends to introduce similar legislation in other states, while also looking at potential federal action.
