Senate committee rejects Ward bill requiring 60‑day notice and refund options for video‑game shutdowns

Assemblymember Ward’s proposal to require 60‑day notice and a menu of remedies when online game servers are shut down failed in committee on a 4‑3 vote.

Ward told the committee AB 19 21 "seeks to be able to protect video game users against premature shutdowns of their digital games," arguing that many modern "live service" titles rely on publisher‑run servers that can render a purchased game unusable overnight. He described the bill’s two core elements: a 60‑day notice requirement before a shutdown and a compliance menu that could include downloadable/offline play, community‑hosted servers or reasonable refunds.

Becca Kramer, testifying for Consumer Reports, urged the committee to "vote aye," saying the measure would "require that developers of video games make consumers whole if they pull online support for games, either by offering an online version of the game or providing customers with a refund." Kramer and the author framed the bill as bringing basic transparency and consumer protections into a market where purchasers may reasonably expect continued access.

Jennifer Gibbons of the Entertainment Software Association opposed the bill, saying "the bill is trying to solve a problem that has not been demonstrated" and arguing the measure rests on "two flawed premises," including that game licenses must be available indefinitely and that publishers regularly take products from consumers without notice. Gibbons warned the bill could force refunds unrelated to actual loss of value and raised safety and copyright concerns about moving play to community servers.

Committee members pressed both sides on details: whether refunds are required now, how to measure reasonable refund windows (Ward said that is a matter for future amendment and negotiation), and whether community servers are a lawful, safe compliance option. Ward said the bill does not mandate indefinite support and that refunds are one option among several.

When the committee voted on the motion to move AB 19 21 forward, the tally was 4 in favor and 3 opposed and the chair announced the bill failed in that vote. The author requested reconsideration; the committee record notes reconsideration was granted without objection for future action.

The bill’s next procedural path is unclear because the committee did not advance it today; the author said she would continue to negotiate narrower language on duration, partial refunds and community‑server options.