Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Sony discontinues physical media for PlayStation-brand hardwares

2026-07-02T06:46:46Z

Louis: rewrote the stub into a full article. sourced the whole thing off the playstation blog announcement plus cbs, the guardian and ign, added background on the ps5 digital shift, the preservation angle and the eu/california ownership context. fixed the references so they actually render.

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Sony
|StartDate=2026-07-01
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=PlayStation
|Product=PlayStation 5,PlayStation 6
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Discontinuation,Loss of Ownership,Digital Media
|Description=On July 1, 2026, Sony announced it will end physical disc production for new PlayStation games starting January 2028, making new releases digital-only.
}}

On July 1, 2026, [[Sony]] Interactive Entertainment announced that it will stop producing physical game discs for all new [[PlayStation]] titles starting January 2028, after which new releases will be sold only as digital downloads on the PlayStation Store or as digital codes at retailers.<ref name="blog">{{Cite web |url=https://blog.playstation.com/2026/07/01/physical-disc-production-ending-in-january-2028-for-new-games-releasing-on-playstation-consoles/ |title=Physical disc production ending in January 2028 for new games releasing on PlayStation consoles |last=Shuman |first=Sid |date=2026-07-01 |website=PlayStation.Blog |publisher=Sony Interactive Entertainment |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> Games that already released, or that release on disc before January 2028, are not affected.<ref name="blog" /> Because a digital-only title has no disc to trade in or resell, the change ends the secondhand market that physical games support for every new PlayStation release after the cutoff.<ref name="guardian">{{Cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/games/2026/jul/01/sony-playstation-digital-downloads |title=Sony will kill PlayStation games on discs in 2028 and offer digital downloads only |date=2026-07-01 |website=The Guardian |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> Sony framed the decision as following consumer preference toward digital; United States spending on new physical games had fallen to $1.5 billion in 2025, its lowest level since 1995.<ref name="cbs">{{Cite web |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sony-playstation-physical-discs-digital-2028/ |title=Sony to stop making physical discs for PlayStation starting in 2028 |last=Cunningham |first=Mary |date=2026-07-01 |website=CBS News |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref>

==Background==
Sony had moved its hardware away from physical media for several years before the 2026 announcement. The PlayStation 5 range had included a Digital Edition, a version sold without a disc drive, since its 2020 launch.<ref name="guardian" /> In late 2023, Sony revised the PS5 so that the disc drive became a detachable accessory rather than a built-in component, and the add-on drive had to be connected to the internet to pair with the console during setup.<ref name="vgc">{{Cite web |url=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/setup-images-confirm-new-ps5s-disc-drive-requires-online-pairing-before-use/ |title=Setup images confirm new PS5's disc drive requires online pairing before use |last=Robinson |first=Andy |date=2023-11-01 |website=Video Games Chronicle |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> Reporting on the detachable drive noted that players and preservationists worried the drive could stop working if Sony's pairing servers were ever taken offline.<ref name="vgc" />

The shift tracked a broader collapse in physical sales. According to Circana, United States consumer spending on new physical video games fell to $1.5 billion in 2025, the lowest figure since the firm began tracking the metric in 1995, down from a peak of $11.6 billion in 2008.<ref name="cbs" /> The Guardian reported that digital sales had reached nearly 80 percent of the market by 2025, citing Piers Harding-Rolls of Ampere Analysis.<ref name="guardian" />

==Announcement==
Sony published the decision on July 1, 2026 in a PlayStation.Blog post by Sid Shuman, Senior Director of Sony Interactive Entertainment Content Communications, and linked to it from the official @PlayStation account on X.<ref name="blog" /><ref name="xpost">{{Cite web |url=https://x.com/PlayStation/status/2072289330287222812 |title=@PlayStation post announcing the end of physical disc production for new games |date=2026-07-01 |website=X |publisher=Sony Interactive Entertainment (@PlayStation) |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> The post stated:

<blockquote>''"[P]hysical game disc production for all new games releasing on PlayStation consoles will be discontinued starting January 2028. Following this date, new games will be available on PlayStation Store and at retailers in digital formats only. This transition has no impact on games that already released, or will be releasing, prior to January 2028 in disc format."''</blockquote><ref name="blog" />

The announcement covers the manufacturing of new game discs only, not the disc drives already sold or the older physical games consumers own.<ref name="blog" /> The blog post did not say Sony would remove disc drives from existing PlayStation 5 hardware. The Guardian reported that analyst Daniel Ahmad said the move all but confirmed the next console, the PlayStation 6, would be digital-only.<ref name="guardian" />

==Consumer and industry response==
The announcement drew complaints from players online.<ref name="guardian" /> The change also affects retailers and rival storefronts. Reporting on the announcement noted that a digital-only catalog leaves no discs to trade in and eliminates the used-game business that specialist retailers rely on.<ref name="guardian" /> GOG, a PC storefront that sells games without digital rights management, restated after the announcement that a downloaded game it sells cannot be revoked or removed from a buyer's library, and the physical-media publisher Lost in Cult said it was ''"deeply saddened"'' by the end of PlayStation discs.<ref name="ign">{{Cite web |url=https://sea.ign.com/playstation-5-3/245019/news/we-are-deeply-saddened-games-retailers-and-historians-respond-to-playstation-abandoning-physical-media |title='We Are Deeply Saddened': Games Retailers and Historians Respond to PlayStation Abandoning Physical Media |date=2026-07-01 |website=IGN |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref>

==Preservation concerns==
The Video Game History Foundation, a non-profit that works on software preservation, criticized the shift toward digital-only distribution.<ref name="ign" /> The foundation has found that 87 percent of classic video games released before 2010 are critically endangered.<ref name="vghf">{{Cite web |url=https://gamehistory.org/87percent/ |title=Survey finds 87% of classic video games are critically endangered |date=2023-07-10 |website=Video Game History Foundation |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> In October 2024 the United States Copyright Office declined to grant an exemption to the anti-circumvention rules of [[DMCA Section 1201]] that would have let libraries and archives offer remote access to out-of-print games; the Entertainment Software Association had opposed the exemption.<ref name="dmca2024">{{Cite web |url=https://gamehistory.org/dmca-2024-statement/ |title=Statement on the DMCA 2024 triennial review ruling |date=2024-10-25 |website=Video Game History Foundation |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref> Foundation director Frank Cifaldi agreed with the assessment that, absent a legal alternative, piracy is ''"the only extant form of media preservation that exists in games right now."''<ref name="pcgamer">{{Cite web |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/they-refuse-to-offer-a-meaningful-alternative-game-preservation-leader-agrees-that-piracy-is-the-only-preservation-option-for-a-discless-future/ |title='They refuse to offer a meaningful alternative': Game preservation leader agrees that piracy is the only preservation option for a discless future |last=Park |first=Morgan |date=2026-07-01 |website=PC Gamer |access-date=2026-07-01}}</ref>

==Regulatory context==
California's Assembly Bill 2426, signed September 24, 2024, restricts sellers of digital goods from advertising a transaction with the words ''"buy"'' or ''"purchase"'' when it grants only a license.<ref name="ab2426">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426 |title=AB-2426 Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods |date=2024-09-24 |website=California Legislative Information}}</ref> The bill describes such a license as one whose access the seller may unilaterally revoke.<ref name="ab2426" />

==See also==
* [[PlayStation]]
* [[Sony]]
* [[DMCA Section 1201]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sony]]
[[Category:PlayStation]]
[[Category:2026 incidents]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]

Entertainment Software Association testimony on AB 1921

2026-06-30T07:38:36Z

Louis: expanded the committee vote section into plain language: the six-of-eleven majority rule, what 'no vote recorded' means, that the four non-voters were present and declined to vote rather than absent, and what reconsideration is

{{#seo:
|description=An Entertainment Software Association witness opposed California's Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921) on June 29, 2026; the Senate committee then failed to pass the bill.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Entertainment Software Association
|StartDate=2026-06-29
|EndDate=
|Status=Pending Resolution
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Digital ownership,Game preservation
|Description=ESA witness Jennifer Gibbons opposed AB 1921 at a June 29, 2026 California Senate committee hearing, calling community game servers illegal; the committee did not pass the bill.
}}

On June 29, 2026, the '''[[Entertainment Software Association]]''' (ESA) told a California Senate committee that community-hosted video game servers are ''illegal'' & that the trade group considers them ''piracy'', in testimony opposing the [[Protect Our Games Act]] (Assembly Bill 1921), a bill that would require game publishers to give buyers an end-of-life plan before they disable a purchased game.<ref name="hearing" /><ref name="billtext" /> The ESA's witness was Jennifer Gibbons, its vice president of state government affairs, who also told the committee that the United States Trade Representative's Notorious Markets report had named ''some of these big private servers as a notorious market''.<ref name="hearing" /><ref name="gibbonsbio" /> [[Microsoft]] distributes free Minecraft server software for self-hosting, & the 2025 USTR Notorious Markets report does not use the term private servers.<ref name="minecraft" /><ref name="ustr2025" /> The committee failed to pass AB 1921 on a 4 to 3 vote, with four of its eleven members not voting, & then granted reconsideration, leaving the bill alive.<ref name="billvotes" /><ref name="billhistory" />

== Background ==
{{Main|Protect Our Games Act}}
The Protect Our Games Act, [[Protect Our Games Act|Assembly Bill 1921]] by Assemblymember Chris Ward, would bar a publisher from selling a single-purchase digital game & later disabling the access that keeps it playable, unless it first gives buyers an end-of-life plan.<ref name="billtext" /> That plan is 60 days' notice plus at least one remedy: an offline version, a patch for independent use, the tools or software to run a community server, or a refund.<ref name="billtext" /> The Assembly passed the bill 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026; it reached the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 29, 2026.<ref name="billvotes" />

The ESA, the trade association for the video game industry, opposed the bill.<ref name="hearing" /> Its lead opposition witness was Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA's vice president of state government affairs, who joined the group in 2024 after serving as senior vice president of government affairs at the Toy Association & earlier as a chief of staff & communications director in the California State Assembly.<ref name="gibbonsbio" />

== Gibbons's testimony ==
Gibbons said the bill rested on two flawed premises. The first, in her words:
<blockquote>''that consumers who purchase a license for a video game should have access to it indefinitely. No other digital product is subject to that standard. Books, movies, music, software, and online services are not required to remain available forever, yet this bill would apply that obligation to video games.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
The second premise she challenged was the bill's assumption that publishers routinely take games from buyers without notice or compensation, which she called inaccurate; she described the bill as addressing ''a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection''.<ref name="hearing" /> She said the bill's compliance options would move gameplay into environments ''outside of publisher oversight, moderation, and security controls, which raises serious safety issues''.<ref name="hearing" /> She said the ESA had suggested the committee look at the approach Assemblymember Irwin took in AB 2426 on digital goods.<ref name="hearing" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee hearing June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee heard AB 1921 on June 29, 2026, the hearing where the Entertainment Software Association's witness called community-hosted game servers ''illegal'' and described them as ''piracy''.<ref name="hearing" />]]

== Community servers and the piracy characterization ==
One of the bill's compliance options would let a publisher satisfy the law by giving buyers the tools or software to run their own community servers.<ref name="billtext" /> During questioning about that option, Minecraft & Call of Duty community servers were named as existing examples.<ref name="hearing" /> Gibbons responded:
<blockquote>''They're illegal, and they are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft for Minecraft has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
Asked whether the practice was like a black market for video games, she answered:
<blockquote>''Yes. In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits, two pending lawsuits against private servers right now ...''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
[[Microsoft]], through its Mojang Studios subsidiary, distributes free Minecraft server software so players can host their own multiplayer games.<ref name="minecraft" /> Its official download page, headed ''Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server'', offers both a Java Edition multiplayer server & a Bedrock dedicated server.<ref name="minecraft" />

[[File:Minecraft Java Edition server download page.png|thumb|center|upright=2.4|Mojang's official Minecraft page, headed ''Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server'', invites players who ''want to set up a multiplayer server'' to download and run one.<ref name="minecraft" />]]

== Notorious Markets reports ==
In the same exchange, Gibbons cited the federal government's Notorious Markets report:
<blockquote>''[T]he United States Trade Representative in their notorious markets reports on counterfeiting [and] piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
The most recent such report, the USTR's 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, does not use the terms ''private servers'', ''pirate servers'', or ''grey shards''.<ref name="ustr2025" /> Its game-related listings are NSW2U, a site distributing infringing copies of [[Nintendo]] Switch games that the FBI seized in July 2025; FitGirl-Repacks, a site offering compressed copies of pirated games; & UnknownCheats, a site for submitting & downloading video game cheat codes.<ref name="ustr2025" /> The phrase does appear in a footnote in the USTR's 2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which described molten-wow.com, a site that had provided unauthorized access to a multiplayer online role-playing game, reappearing under the successor name warmane.com, & referred to ''unauthorized private servers'', also called ''pirate servers'' or ''grey shards''.<ref name="ustr2015" /> That 2015 review listed molten-wow.com among positive developments because it had reportedly closed.<ref name="ustr2015" />

== Refunds and the bill's remedies ==
On the bill's refund remedy, Gibbons told the committee:
<blockquote>''Where compliance is impossible, this bill is going to require refunds that bear no relationship to the years of entertainment that the consumer may have received.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
Under the bill's text, a refund is one of several remedies a publisher may choose, alongside an offline version, a patch for independent use, or server tools, & the refund equals the highest price the publisher charged for the game in the 12 months before it stops providing those services.<ref name="billtext" /> Those requirements would apply only to games first sold or rereleased on or after January 1, 2028.<ref name="billtext" /> In a June 9, 2026 op-ed, ESA president & CEO Stan Pierre-Louis characterized the bill as suggesting ''online video games should last forever''.<ref name="esaoped" />

== Committee vote ==
The committee voted on AB 1921 on June 29, 2026. The motion was to pass the bill & re-refer it to the Appropriations Committee; it drew 4 ayes & 3 noes, with four of the committee's eleven members not voting, & failed.<ref name="billvotes" />

More members voted for the bill than against it, but that was not enough to pass it. Under the rules of the California Legislature, a bill cannot leave a committee unless a majority of the committee's full membership votes for it: ''A majority of all members is required to report a bill out of committee.''<ref name="comrules" /> The committee has eleven members, so six aye votes were needed.<ref name="billvotes" /> AB 1921 received four, so it failed for lack of the six ayes it needed, regardless of the three noes.

The four members who did not vote, Archuleta, Grayson, Menjivar, & Smallwood-Cuevas, were marked ''No Vote Recorded,'' or NVR.<ref name="billvotes" /> California's records do not separate a member who is absent from one who is present but does not vote; the nonpartisan newsroom CalMatters reports that ''the California Legislature does not distinguish between a lawmaker who is absent ... and a legislator who is present but does not vote,'' and that both count the same as a no vote.<ref name="calmatters" /> A member who does not vote aye therefore has the same effect on the outcome as one who votes no.

In this case the four were present, not absent. The hearing recording shows each taking part in the committee's other business that day, & Senator Archuleta cast an aye on the bill heard immediately before AB 1921, seconds before its roll call; when their names were called on AB 1921, none of the four cast a vote.<ref name="hearing" />

After the bill failed, the committee granted reconsideration, which the California State Senate glossary defines as ''a motion giving the opportunity to take another vote on a matter previously decided in a committee hearing or floor session.''<ref name="glossary" /> That keeps AB 1921 alive for one more committee vote if its author brings it back.<ref name="billhistory" /> As of June 30, 2026, AB 1921 had not advanced past the committee.<ref name="billhistory" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee vote June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee record shows AB 1921 failing on June 29, 2026 by 4 ayes to 3 noes, with four members not voting.<ref name="billvotes" />]]

== See also ==
* [[Stop Killing Games]]
* [[Video game preservation]]
* [[Planned obsolescence]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="hearing">{{Cite web |title=Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, hearing on AB 1921 |publisher=California State Senate |date=2026-06-29 |url=https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-business-professions-and-economic-development-committee-20260629 |access-date=2026-06-30}} Official recording: https://vod.senate.ca.gov/videos/2026/20260629_Business_Prof_Econ_Development.mp4 (Gibbons testimony at approximately 0:06:39 to 0:08:43 and 0:16:01 to 0:17:08; committee vote and reconsideration at approximately 2:33:58 to 2:34:39).</ref>
<ref name="billtext">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill text) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billvotes">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (votes) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billhistory">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill history) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gibbonsbio">{{Cite web |title=Jennifer Gibbons, Vice President, State Government Affairs |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/staff/jennifer-gibbons/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="esaoped">{{Cite web |title=Misguided California bill would harm video game makers, players |last=Pierre-Louis |first=Stan |date=2026-06-09 |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/opinion-misguided-california-bill-would-harm-video-game-makers-players/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="minecraft">{{Cite web |title=Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server |publisher=Mojang Studios / Microsoft |url=https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/download/server |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2025">{{Cite web |title=2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/2026/2025%20Notorious%20Markets%20List%20(final).pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2015">{{Cite web |title=2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR-2015-Out-of-Cycle-Review-Notorious-Markets-Final.pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="comrules">{{Cite web |title=Committee Rules |publisher=California State Assembly |url=https://aaar.assembly.ca.gov/publications/committee-rules |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="calmatters">{{Cite web |title=Some legislators miss hundreds of votes, but even 'excused' absences count as a 'no' |last=Kamal |first=Sameea |date=2024-10-21 |website=CalMatters |url=https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/10/california-legislature-absences-abstentions/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="glossary">{{Cite web |title=Glossary of Legislative Terms |publisher=California State Senate |url=https://www.senate.ca.gov/citizens-guide/glossary-terms |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Entertainment Software Association]]
[[Category:Stop Killing Games]]
[[Category:Digital ownership]]

Entertainment Software Association testimony on AB 1921

2026-06-30T07:19:26Z

Louis: new page documenting the esa's june 29 2026 testimony against ab 1921 in the senate committee, placing each claim next to the bill text, the hearing recording, and the ustr reports; the committee failed the bill 4 to 3 and granted reconsideration

{{#seo:
|description=An Entertainment Software Association witness opposed California's Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921) on June 29, 2026; the Senate committee then failed to pass the bill.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Entertainment Software Association
|StartDate=2026-06-29
|EndDate=
|Status=Pending Resolution
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Digital ownership,Game preservation
|Description=ESA witness Jennifer Gibbons opposed AB 1921 at a June 29, 2026 California Senate committee hearing, calling community game servers illegal; the committee did not pass the bill.
}}

On June 29, 2026, the '''[[Entertainment Software Association]]''' (ESA) told a California Senate committee that community-hosted video game servers are ''illegal'' & that the trade group considers them ''piracy'', in testimony opposing the [[Protect Our Games Act]] (Assembly Bill 1921), a bill that would require game publishers to give buyers an end-of-life plan before they disable a purchased game.<ref name="hearing" /><ref name="billtext" /> The ESA's witness was Jennifer Gibbons, its vice president of state government affairs, who also told the committee that the United States Trade Representative's Notorious Markets report had named ''some of these big private servers as a notorious market''.<ref name="hearing" /><ref name="gibbonsbio" /> [[Microsoft]] distributes free Minecraft server software for self-hosting, & the 2025 USTR Notorious Markets report does not use the term private servers.<ref name="minecraft" /><ref name="ustr2025" /> The committee failed to pass AB 1921 on a 4 to 3 vote, with four of its eleven members not voting, & then granted reconsideration, leaving the bill alive.<ref name="billvotes" /><ref name="billhistory" />

== Background ==
{{Main|Protect Our Games Act}}
The Protect Our Games Act, [[Protect Our Games Act|Assembly Bill 1921]] by Assemblymember Chris Ward, would bar a publisher from selling a single-purchase digital game & later disabling the access that keeps it playable, unless it first gives buyers an end-of-life plan.<ref name="billtext" /> That plan is 60 days' notice plus at least one remedy: an offline version, a patch for independent use, the tools or software to run a community server, or a refund.<ref name="billtext" /> The Assembly passed the bill 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026; it reached the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 29, 2026.<ref name="billvotes" />

The ESA, the trade association for the video game industry, opposed the bill.<ref name="hearing" /> Its lead opposition witness was Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA's vice president of state government affairs, who joined the group in 2024 after serving as senior vice president of government affairs at the Toy Association & earlier as a chief of staff & communications director in the California State Assembly.<ref name="gibbonsbio" />

== Gibbons's testimony ==
Gibbons said the bill rested on two flawed premises. The first, in her words:
<blockquote>''that consumers who purchase a license for a video game should have access to it indefinitely. No other digital product is subject to that standard. Books, movies, music, software, and online services are not required to remain available forever, yet this bill would apply that obligation to video games.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
The second premise she challenged was the bill's assumption that publishers routinely take games from buyers without notice or compensation, which she called inaccurate; she described the bill as addressing ''a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection''.<ref name="hearing" /> She said the bill's compliance options would move gameplay into environments ''outside of publisher oversight, moderation, and security controls, which raises serious safety issues''.<ref name="hearing" /> She said the ESA had suggested the committee look at the approach Assemblymember Irwin took in AB 2426 on digital goods.<ref name="hearing" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee hearing June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee heard AB 1921 on June 29, 2026, the hearing where the Entertainment Software Association's witness called community-hosted game servers ''illegal'' and described them as ''piracy''.<ref name="hearing" />]]

== Community servers and the piracy characterization ==
One of the bill's compliance options would let a publisher satisfy the law by giving buyers the tools or software to run their own community servers.<ref name="billtext" /> During questioning about that option, Minecraft & Call of Duty community servers were named as existing examples.<ref name="hearing" /> Gibbons responded:
<blockquote>''They're illegal, and they are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft for Minecraft has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
Asked whether the practice was like a black market for video games, she answered:
<blockquote>''Yes. In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits, two pending lawsuits against private servers right now ...''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
[[Microsoft]], through its Mojang Studios subsidiary, distributes free Minecraft server software so players can host their own multiplayer games.<ref name="minecraft" /> Its official download page, headed ''Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server'', offers both a Java Edition multiplayer server & a Bedrock dedicated server.<ref name="minecraft" />

[[File:Minecraft Java Edition server download page.png|thumb|center|upright=2.4|Mojang's official Minecraft page, headed ''Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server'', invites players who ''want to set up a multiplayer server'' to download and run one.<ref name="minecraft" />]]

== Notorious Markets reports ==
In the same exchange, Gibbons cited the federal government's Notorious Markets report:
<blockquote>''[T]he United States Trade Representative in their notorious markets reports on counterfeiting [and] piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
The most recent such report, the USTR's 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, does not use the terms ''private servers'', ''pirate servers'', or ''grey shards''.<ref name="ustr2025" /> Its game-related listings are NSW2U, a site distributing infringing copies of [[Nintendo]] Switch games that the FBI seized in July 2025; FitGirl-Repacks, a site offering compressed copies of pirated games; & UnknownCheats, a site for submitting & downloading video game cheat codes.<ref name="ustr2025" /> The phrase does appear in a footnote in the USTR's 2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which described molten-wow.com, a site that had provided unauthorized access to a multiplayer online role-playing game, reappearing under the successor name warmane.com, & referred to ''unauthorized private servers'', also called ''pirate servers'' or ''grey shards''.<ref name="ustr2015" /> That 2015 review listed molten-wow.com among positive developments because it had reportedly closed.<ref name="ustr2015" />

== Refunds and the bill's remedies ==
On the bill's refund remedy, Gibbons told the committee:
<blockquote>''Where compliance is impossible, this bill is going to require refunds that bear no relationship to the years of entertainment that the consumer may have received.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
Under the bill's text, a refund is one of several remedies a publisher may choose, alongside an offline version, a patch for independent use, or server tools, & the refund equals the highest price the publisher charged for the game in the 12 months before it stops providing those services.<ref name="billtext" /> Those requirements would apply only to games first sold or rereleased on or after January 1, 2028.<ref name="billtext" /> In a June 9, 2026 op-ed, ESA president & CEO Stan Pierre-Louis characterized the bill as suggesting ''online video games should last forever''.<ref name="esaoped" />

== Committee vote ==
The committee voted on AB 1921 on June 29, 2026. The motion was to pass the bill & re-refer it to the Appropriations Committee; it drew 4 ayes & 3 noes, with four of the committee's eleven members not voting, & failed.<ref name="billvotes" /> The committee then granted reconsideration, which leaves the bill able to be taken up again.<ref name="billhistory" /> As of June 30, 2026, AB 1921 had not advanced past the committee.<ref name="billhistory" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee vote June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee record shows AB 1921 failing on June 29, 2026 by 4 ayes to 3 noes, with four members not voting.<ref name="billvotes" />]]

== See also ==
* [[Stop Killing Games]]
* [[Video game preservation]]
* [[Planned obsolescence]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="hearing">{{Cite web |title=Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, hearing on AB 1921 |publisher=California State Senate |date=2026-06-29 |url=https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-business-professions-and-economic-development-committee-20260629 |access-date=2026-06-30}} Official recording: https://vod.senate.ca.gov/videos/2026/20260629_Business_Prof_Econ_Development.mp4 (Gibbons testimony at approximately 0:06:39 to 0:08:43 and 0:16:01 to 0:17:08; committee vote and reconsideration at approximately 2:33:58 to 2:34:39).</ref>
<ref name="billtext">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill text) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billvotes">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (votes) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billhistory">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill history) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gibbonsbio">{{Cite web |title=Jennifer Gibbons, Vice President, State Government Affairs |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/staff/jennifer-gibbons/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="esaoped">{{Cite web |title=Misguided California bill would harm video game makers, players |last=Pierre-Louis |first=Stan |date=2026-06-09 |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/opinion-misguided-california-bill-would-harm-video-game-makers-players/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="minecraft">{{Cite web |title=Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server |publisher=Mojang Studios / Microsoft |url=https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/download/server |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2025">{{Cite web |title=2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/2026/2025%20Notorious%20Markets%20List%20(final).pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2015">{{Cite web |title=2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR-2015-Out-of-Cycle-Review-Notorious-Markets-Final.pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Entertainment Software Association]]
[[Category:Stop Killing Games]]
[[Category:Digital ownership]]

Entertainment Software Association

2026-06-30T07:19:15Z

Louis: new page on the entertainment software association, the video game industry's trade and lobbying group: history, members, leadership, and its record on game preservation, dmca exemptions, loot boxes, and ab 1921

{{#seo:
|description=The Entertainment Software Association is the US video game industry's trade and lobbying group, opposing game-preservation laws, DMCA exemptions, and loot-box rules.
}}
{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=1994
|Industry=Trade association, Lobbying
|Logo=
|ParentCompany=
|Type=Non-Profit
|CompanyAlias=ESA, Interactive Digital Software Association, IDSA
|Website=https://www.theesa.com/
|Description=Video game industry trade and lobbying group; opposed laws to keep purchased games playable and DMCA exemptions for game preservation
}}

'''Entertainment Software Association''' (ESA) is the trade association representing the United States video game industry.<ref name="agi" /> The group has opposed game-preservation exemptions to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA) sought by libraries & museums,<ref name="gamedev2024" /> & it pointed to the industry's voluntary ratings & odds-disclosure measures when the [[Federal Trade Commission]] examined loot boxes in 2019.<ref name="lootstatement" /><ref name="giloot" /> In 2026 the ESA opposed California's [[Protect Our Games Act]] (AB 1921),<ref name="oped" /> a [[Stop Killing Games]] bill that would require publishers to provide an offline version, a final patch, or a refund once a digital game's online services end.<ref name="leginfo" />

== Background ==

The ESA was founded in 1994<ref name="about" /> as the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the main trade group for the video game industry.<ref name="cnet2003" /> That year the IDSA created the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), a self-regulatory body that assigns age & content ratings to video games.<ref name="esrb" /> On July 21, 2003, the IDSA announced it had changed its name to the Entertainment Software Association, saying the new name more clearly described the organization's scope.<ref name="cnet2003" />

The ESA is based in Washington, D.C.<ref name="fec" /> It states its mission on its website:
<blockquote>''Our mission is to help expand and protect the innovative and creative marketplace for the video game industry here in the United States.''</blockquote><ref name="about" />

The ESA also ran the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the video game industry's annual trade show, until it announced the end of the long-running event on December 12, 2023.<ref name="e3end" />

== Membership ==

The ESA represents video game publishers rather than selling products of its own, & its membership is documented through its initiatives & legislative filings. In March 2025 the ESA launched the Accessible Games Initiative at the Game Developers Conference with five founding member companies: [[Electronic Arts]], [[Google]], [[Microsoft]], [[Nintendo]] of America, & [[Ubisoft]].<ref name="agi" /> The initiative, which standardizes accessibility tags for digital storefronts, is managed by the ESA as the trade association representing the U.S. video game industry.<ref name="agi" />

== Leadership ==

Stan Pierre-Louis is the ESA's president & chief executive officer; he authored the organization's June 2026 op-ed opposing AB 1921.<ref name="oped" />

Jennifer Gibbons is the ESA's vice president of state government affairs, a role she took on after joining the organization in 2024.<ref name="gibbonsbio" /> She previously served as senior vice president of government affairs at the Toy Association & held senior staff roles in the California State Assembly, including chief of staff & communications director.<ref name="gibbonsbio" />

== First Amendment litigation ==

The ESA has also litigated on behalf of its members over the First Amendment status of video games. In ''Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association'' (2011), a case in which the ESA was a named party, the U.S. Supreme Court held that video games are protected speech, affording them the same First Amendment protection as other forms of artistic expression.<ref name="firstam" /> The Court's ruling stated:
<blockquote>''Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas ... through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium ...''</blockquote><ref name="firstam" />

== Incidents ==

=== Opposition to the Protect Our Games Act ===
{{Main|Entertainment Software Association testimony on AB 1921}}

The ESA opposed California's [[Protect Our Games Act]] (AB 1921),<ref name="oped" /> part of the [[Stop Killing Games]] campaign for laws that keep purchased games playable after their online services end. The bill passed the State Assembly 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026,<ref name="leginfovotes" /> before failing passage in the Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development Committee on June 29, 2026 by a vote of 4 to 3, with reconsideration granted.<ref name="leginfovotes" /> AB 1921 would apply to digital games first sold or rereleased on or after January 1, 2028, & exempts subscription services & games offered for free.<ref name="leginfo" />

In a June 9, 2026 op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee & on the ESA website, ESA president Stan Pierre-Louis argued that the bill misunderstands how online games are built:
<blockquote>''Under Assembly Bill 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, when a game publisher decides to shut down a 'server-connected' digital game, developers would be forced to choose between keeping it running indefinitely, rebuilding the game to work without technical support or providing a full refund to everyone ...''</blockquote><ref name="oped" />

California's Digital Democracy database records that the ESA sent lobbyist Timothy Lynch to testify against the bill before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21, 2026.<ref name="digidem" /> At the June 29, 2026 Senate committee hearing, ESA vice president of state government affairs Jennifer Gibbons appeared as the lead opposition witness, telling the committee the measure raised a question of ''consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection.''<ref name="hearing" />

=== DMCA Section 1201 game-preservation exemptions ===

Every three years the U.S. Copyright Office weighs exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules, & the ESA has repeatedly opposed exemptions that would let libraries & museums preserve out-of-print online games.<ref name="gamedev2024" /> In its opposition to an exemption request from the Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (MADE), the ESA said it supported preserving video games only under ''circumstances that do not jeopardize game companies' rights under copyright law.''<ref name="made" />

During the 2024 rulemaking, the Video Game History Foundation sought an exemption to allow remote access to out-of-print games held by libraries.<ref name="gamedev2024" /> The ESA opposed the request, saying a ''substantial market'' still exists for classic games. It wrote:
<blockquote>''Enabling widespread remote access to preserved games with minimal supervision would present a serious risk to an important market.''</blockquote><ref name="gamedev2024" />
The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the exemption in late October 2024, with its Register of Copyrights finding that the petitioners had not met their burden for the exemption.<ref name="gamedev2024" />

=== Loot boxes and the 2019 FTC workshop ===

On August 7, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission held a public workshop titled Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes, examining randomized in-game purchases & their similarities to gambling.<ref name="giloot" /> Ahead of the workshop, the ESA issued a statement emphasizing the industry's existing safeguards:
<blockquote>''The Federal Trade Commission previously recognized that the video game industry excels in partnering with caregivers and consumers by providing reliable video game ratings and comprehensive information. The industry also provides robust parental controls that ensure parents maintain control over in-game spending.''</blockquote><ref name="lootstatement" />

At the workshop, ESA chief counsel of tech policy Michael Warnecke announced commitments from Nintendo, [[Sony]], & Microsoft to disclose loot-box odds for new games by the end of 2020, & a number of ESA member publishers made a similar pledge for their own titles.<ref name="giloot" />

=== E3 2019 registrant data leak ===

In August 2019, a flaw on the ESA's E3 registration website exposed a publicly downloadable spreadsheet containing the names, addresses, & phone numbers of more than 2,000 journalists, content creators, & industry professionals who had registered for E3 2019.<ref name="leak" /> The ESA said a ''website vulnerability'' had made the contact list public & that it took steps to secure the data once notified.<ref name="leak" />

== Lobbying ==

The ESA is one of the video game industry's principal lobbying organizations at the federal & state levels. The Center for Responsive Politics recorded almost $5.5 million in ESA federal lobbying spending in 2013.<ref name="marketplace" /> The association's federal political action committee, the ESA PAC (Federal Election Commission committee ID C00439216), registered as a trade-association PAC on October 1, 2007.<ref name="fec" />

In California, the ESA's lobbyists have testified against AB 1921 & on other bills involving digital games & consumer privacy.<ref name="digidem" />

== See also ==

* [[Right to Repair]]
* [[Planned obsolescence]]

== References ==

<references>
<ref name="agi">{{Cite web |title=Entertainment Software Association Introduces the Accessible Games Initiative to Provide Players with Information About Accessibility Features in Video Games |url=https://www.theesa.com/entertainment-software-association-introduces-the-accessible-games-initiative-to-provide-players-with-information-about-accessibility-features-in-video-games/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |date=2025-03-20 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="about">{{Cite web |title=About ESA |url=https://www.theesa.com/about-esa/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="cnet2003">{{Cite web |title=Game group changes name |author=David Becker |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/game-group-changes-name/ |website=CNET |date=2003-07-21 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="esrb">{{Cite web |title=About ESRB |url=https://www.esrb.org/about/ |website=Entertainment Software Rating Board |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="fec">{{Cite web |title=Entertainment Software Association PAC (ESA PAC) committee overview |url=https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00439216/ |website=Federal Election Commission |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="e3end">{{Cite web |title=E3 officially abandoned by the ESA |author=Marie Dealessandri |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/e3-officially-abandoned-by-the-esa |website=GamesIndustry.biz |date=2023-12-12 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gibbonsbio">{{Cite web |title=Jennifer Gibbons |url=https://www.theesa.com/staff/jennifer-gibbons/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="firstam">{{Cite web |title=First Amendment |url=https://www.theesa.com/issues/first-amendment/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="oped">{{Cite web |title=Opinion: Misguided California bill would harm video game makers, players |author=Stan Pierre-Louis |url=https://www.theesa.com/opinion-misguided-california-bill-would-harm-video-game-makers-players/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |date=2026-06-09 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="leginfo">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |website=California Legislative Information |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="leginfovotes">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Votes |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |website=California Legislative Information |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="hearing">{{Cite web |title=Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, June 29, 2026 |url=https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-business-professions-and-economic-development-committee-20260629 |website=California State Senate |date=2026-06-29 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="digidem">{{Cite web |title=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/organizations/-5075 |website=Digital Democracy, CalMatters |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="made">{{Cite web |title=DMCA Section 1201 Rulemaking: ESA Opposition to MADE's Exemption Request |url=https://www.theesa.com/dmca-section-1201-rulemaking-esa-opposition-to-mades-exemption-request/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gamedev2024">{{Cite web |title=U.S. Copyright Office rejects DMCA exemption to support game preservation |author=Justin Carter |url=https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/u-s-copyright-office-rejects-dmca-exemption-to-support-game-preservation |website=Game Developer |date=2024-10-25 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="lootstatement">{{Cite web |title=Entertainment Software Association Statement in Response to the Announced Federal Trade Commission Public Workshop on Loot Boxes |url=https://www.theesa.com/entertainment-software-association-statement-in-response-to-the-announced-federal-trade-commission-public-workshop-on-loot-boxes/ |website=Entertainment Software Association |date=2019-04-09 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="giloot">{{Cite web |title=What did the FTC hear in its loot box workshop? |author=Brendan Sinclair |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-did-the-ftc-hear-in-its-loot-box-workshop |website=GamesIndustry.biz |date=2019-08-07 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="leak">{{Cite web |title=E3 organizer leaks personal info of over 2,000 media and content creators |author=Andy Chalk |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/e3-organizer-leaks-personal-info-of-over-2000-media-and-content-creators/ |website=PC Gamer |date=2019-08-05 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="marketplace">{{Cite web |title=Video game lobby answers 'call of duty' on the Hill |author=Nancy Marshall-Genzer |url=https://www.marketplace.org/story/2014/07/30/video-game-lobby-answers-call-duty-hill |website=Marketplace |date=2014-07-30 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Entertainment Software Association]]
[[Category:Trade associations]]
[[Category:Lobbying organizations]]
[[Category:Video games]]

Protect Our Games Act

2026-06-30T06:26:42Z

Louis: big update: added the june 29 senate committee hearing, the esa testimony, and the stop killing games background; corrected the effective date to 2028, the floor vote to 43-16, and the refund language; replaced reddit citations with the bill text, the vote record, and the hearing recording

{{#seo:
|description=California's Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921) would require game publishers to keep purchased games playable after they end support.
}}

'''Protect Our Games Act''' is the short title of '''California Assembly Bill 1921 (AB 1921)''', a 2026 bill that would stop video game publishers from selling a single-purchase digital game & later disabling the access that keeps it playable, unless the publisher first gives buyers an end-of-life plan.<ref name="billtext" /> The bill, by Assemblymember Chris Ward,<ref name="engadget" /> would require 60 days' notice before an operator ends the services a game needs, then at least one remedy: an offline version, a patch for independent use, the tools or software to run a community server, or a refund.<ref name="billtext" /> The Assembly passed it 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026.<ref name="billvotes" /> On June 29, 2026, it failed passage in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on a 4 to 3 vote with four members not voting,<ref name="billvotes" /> after the Entertainment Software Association testified in opposition;<ref name="hearing" /> the committee granted reconsideration, so the bill is not dead.<ref name="billhistory" />

== The bill's requirements ==
AB 1921 would add Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 20660) to Division 8 of the California Business and Professions Code as the Protect Our Games Act.<ref name="billtext" /> It defines ''ordinary use'' as a buyer's ability to use a game's core features consistent with how it was advertised, marketed, or described at the time of purchase, & a ''digital game operator'' as the publisher, developer, or other entity that controls whether a buyer can make ordinary use of the game, including through authentication systems, server access, [[Digital rights management]], or required software updates.<ref name="billtext" />

At least 60 days before an operator stops providing the services a game needs for ordinary use, the bill would require it to tell buyers & prospective buyers the cessation date, which services & features will end, any security risks, and how to keep using the game or obtain a refund.<ref name="billtext" /> Once those services end, the operator would have to provide at least one remedy: an offline-playable version, a patch or update that lets the game run independently, documentation or software for buyers to host their own servers, or a refund equal to the highest price the operator had offered for the game in the 12 months before it stopped providing those services.<ref name="billtext" />

[[File:AB 1921 end-of-life provisions.png|thumb|center|upright=2.4|AB 1921's operative section requires an operator to give 60 days' notice before ending the services a game needs, then provide at least one remedy: an offline version, a patch, a refund, or documentation to host a private or community server.<ref name="billtext" />]]

The bill would also bar an operator from selling or distributing a version of a game that a buyer cannot use independently of the operator's services after those services end.<ref name="billtext" /> Its requirements would apply only to games first available for purchase or rereleased on or after January 1, 2028, & would exempt subscription services, games offered at no charge, & games a buyer can permanently download & the seller cannot revoke.<ref name="billtext" />

In the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis, Ward described the problem the bill targets:
<blockquote>''When a game operator stops supporting a live-service game server, that game becomes inoperable for users who purchased a license with the expectation of continual access. This bill requires user notifications before the end of server support and ensures that paid users walk away with either a playable version of the game or a refund once services cease.''</blockquote><ref name="apcp" />

== Remote game shutdowns and the Stop Killing Games movement ==
A [[games as a service|live-service]] game can stop working entirely when its publisher shuts down the servers it depends on. When [[Ubisoft]] delisted its racing game The Crew on December 14, 2023 & shut down its servers on March 31, 2024, the game became completely unplayable, including its single-player campaign, because it required an always-online connection.<ref name="crew" />

The shutdown prompted [[Stop Killing Games]], which describes itself as a global coalition of gamers, consumer advocates, & developers pushing for legal protections.<ref name="skg" /> The campaign frames its demand as an end-of-life requirement rather than a call for perpetual servers:
<blockquote>''An increasing number of games are sold as goods, but designed to be completely unplayable for everyone as soon as support ends. We are demanding legislation to end this practice.''</blockquote><ref name="skg" />

California had already addressed digital ownership at the point of sale. AB 2426 by Assemblymember Irwin, approved by the governor on September 24, 2024, bars sellers from advertising a digital good with words such as ''buy'' or ''purchase'' unless they disclose that the buyer is receiving a [[End-user license agreement|license]] & list the restrictions & conditions that come with it.<ref name="ab2426" />

The campaign's reach extends past California. In the European Union, a European Citizens' Initiative titled Stop Destroying Videogames collected statements of support between July 31, 2024 & July 31, 2025 & was submitted to the European Commission on January 26, 2026 with 1,294,188 verified signatures, past the one-million threshold the rules require.<ref name="eci" /> The European Parliament held a public hearing on the initiative on April 16, 2026 & a plenary debate on May 21, 2026.<ref name="ecicomm" /> On June 16, 2026, the Commission concluded that a legal obligation to keep games playable after publishers stop providing them ''would not be proportionate'' & was ''not envisaged,'' & said it would instead initiate, by the end of 2026, an exchange with the video game industry & consumer representatives to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games' end of life.<ref name="ecicomm" />

In the United Kingdom, a petition to Parliament titled ''Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already sold'' drew 189,887 signatures before it closed on July 14, 2025 & was debated in Parliament on November 4, 2025.<ref name="ukpetition" /> The UK government responded that it had no plans to amend consumer law on disabling video games.<ref name="ukpetition" />

== Legislative history ==
Ward introduced AB 1921 on February 12, 2026.<ref name="billhistory" /> It cleared three Assembly committees that spring: Privacy and Consumer Protection on April 16, 2026 by 10 to 4, Judiciary on April 22, 2026 by 8 to 2, & Appropriations on May 14, 2026 by 11 to 2.<ref name="billhistory" /> The full Assembly passed it 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026.<ref name="billvotes" />

In the Senate, the Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee passed it 6 to 2 on June 23, 2026 & sent it to the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.<ref name="billhistory" /> That committee took up the bill on June 29, 2026. The motion was to pass the bill & re-refer it to Appropriations; it drew 4 ayes (Arreguín, Caballero, Umberg, & Wahab) and 3 noes (Choi, Niello, & Strickland), with four of the eleven members on the roll not voting (Archuleta, Grayson, Menjivar, & Smallwood-Cuevas), and it failed.<ref name="billvotes" /> The committee then granted reconsideration, which leaves the bill alive for a possible future vote.<ref name="billhistory" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee vote June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee record shows AB 1921 failing on June 29, 2026 by 4 ayes to 3 noes, with four members not voting.<ref name="billvotes" />]]

== Industry opposition ==
The Entertainment Software Association, the trade association for the video game industry, led the opposition.<ref name="hearing" /> In a June 9, 2026 op-ed, ESA president & CEO Stan Pierre-Louis wrote that the bill would force developers to choose among three options:
<blockquote>''keeping it running indefinitely, rebuilding the game to work without technical support or providing a full refund to everyone, no matter how long ago they played or how much time they spent in that particular game.''</blockquote><ref name="esaoped" />
He wrote that an online game depends on ''an enormous, invisible infrastructure'' of development teams, moderators, & servers, and that ''[m]aintaining legacy systems is inefficient and expensive, and those costs get passed on to consumers.''<ref name="esaoped" />

[[File:AB 1921 committee analysis registered opposition.png|thumb|center|upright=2.4|The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis lists the Entertainment Software Association as the sole registered opposition to AB 1921.<ref name="apcp" />]]

The ESA's lead opposition witness before the June 29 committee was Jennifer Gibbons, its vice president of state government affairs, who joined the ESA in 2024 after serving as senior vice president of government affairs for the Toy Association &, earlier, as a chief of staff & communications director in the California State Assembly.<ref name="gibbonsbio" /><ref name="hearing" /> Gibbons told the committee that the ESA had suggested looking at the approach Assemblymember Irwin took in AB 2426 on digital goods.<ref name="hearing" />

Industry-side legal commentary echoed the cost concern. Attorneys at the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz wrote on June 23, 2026 that maintaining an indefinite online service ''can become an untenable burden,'' and that compliance through rebuilding a game to run offline or on private servers could cost a publisher ''upwards of the cost of developing a video game port'' for free.<ref name="fkks" />

== Committee testimony, June 29, 2026 ==
Gibbons told the committee that the bill rested on two flawed premises:
<blockquote>''One, that consumers who purchase a license for a video game should have access to it indefinitely. No other digital product is subject to that standard. Books, movies, music, software, and online services are not required to remain available forever, yet this bill would apply that obligation to video games.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
She also said the bill addressed ''a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection.''<ref name="hearing" />

[[File:AB 1921 Senate committee hearing June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee heard AB 1921 on June 29, 2026, the hearing where the Entertainment Software Association's witness called community-hosted game servers ''illegal'' and described them as ''piracy''.<ref name="hearing" />]]

=== Community servers and Minecraft ===
One of the bill's compliance options lets an operator satisfy the law by giving buyers the tools or software to run their own community servers.<ref name="billtext" /> During the hearing, Minecraft & Call of Duty community servers were named as existing examples of that option.<ref name="hearing" /> Gibbons responded:
<blockquote>''They're illegal, and they are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft for Minecraft has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
When a member asked whether it was ''like the black market of video games,'' Gibbons answered:
<blockquote>''Yes. In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits, two pending lawsuits against private servers right now ...''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />

[[Microsoft]], through its Mojang Studios subsidiary, distributes free Minecraft server software for players to host their own multiplayer games. Its official download page offers a ''Minecraft: Java Edition server'' & a Bedrock dedicated server, & invites players who ''want to set up a multiplayer server'' to download & run one.<ref name="minecraft" />

[[File:Minecraft Java Edition server download page.png|thumb|center|upright=2.4|Mojang's official Minecraft page, headed ''Download the Minecraft: Java Edition server'', invites players who ''want to set up a multiplayer server'' to download and run one.<ref name="minecraft" />]]

=== Perpetual support versus an end-of-life plan ===
Pierre-Louis's op-ed described the bill as a demand that ''online video games should last forever.''<ref name="esaoped" /> The bill's text lists a refund as one of the remedies an operator may choose, alongside an offline version, a patch for independent use, or server tools, & its requirements would attach only to games first sold or rereleased on or after January 1, 2028.<ref name="billtext" />

=== Keeping online games playable after shutdown ===
Gibbons told the committee:
<blockquote>''Where compliance is impossible, this bill is going to require refunds that bear no relationship to the years of entertainment that the consumer may have received.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
Some publishers have kept games available after ending online service. [[Sony]]'s Gran Turismo Sport ended its online services on January 31, 2024; the developer's notice stated that ''[t]he offline portions of the game can still be played, including purchased Add-Ons.''<ref name="gtsport" /> Before shutting down the public servers for Knockout City on June 6, 2023, Velan Studios released a free Private Hosted Server Edition for Windows so players could run their own servers, saying it wanted to ''turn the keys to Knockout City over to the community.''<ref name="knockout" />

=== Licensed music in Alan Wake ===
The Frankfurt Kurnit attorneys also wrote that AB 1921 did not account for third-party rights:
<blockquote>''Video games often include licensed third-party content such as music, likeness rights, or other protected content that typically have fixed terms. When those terms expire, the operator may no longer have the right to distribute or maintain those elements.''</blockquote><ref name="fkks" />
After the music license for David Bowie's ''Space Oddity'' in Remedy Entertainment's Alan Wake expired, Remedy released an update that removed the song ''due to changes in licensing'' & replaced it with a new original track by Petri Alanko called Strange Moons.<ref name="ignalanwake" />

=== USTR Notorious Markets reports ===
Gibbons added:
<blockquote>''[T]he United States Trade Representative in their notorious markets reports on counterfeiting [and] piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.''</blockquote><ref name="hearing" />
The most recent report, the USTR 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, does not use the terms ''private servers'', ''pirate servers'', or ''grey shards''; its game-related listings are NSW2U, a site distributing infringing copies of [[Nintendo]] Switch games that the FBI seized in July 2025; FitGirl-Repacks, a site offering compressed copies of pirated games; & UnknownCheats, a site for submitting & downloading video-game cheat codes.<ref name="ustr2025" /> The only USTR document to use the phrase is a footnote in the 2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which described the reappearance of molten-wow.com, a site that had provided unauthorized access to a popular multiplayer online role-playing game, under a successor name, warmane.com, & referred to ''unauthorized private servers'', which it also called ''pirate servers'' or ''grey shards''.<ref name="ustr2015" /> That 2015 review listed molten-wow.com among positive developments because it had reportedly closed.<ref name="ustr2015" />

== Status ==
As of June 30, 2026, AB 1921 had not advanced past the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, where it failed passage on June 29, 2026.<ref name="billhistory" /> The committee granted reconsideration, leaving open a possible future vote.<ref name="billhistory" /> If enacted, the bill's requirements would not apply to any game until January 1, 2028.<ref name="billtext" />

== See also ==
* [[Video game preservation]]
* [[Planned obsolescence]]
* [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]
* [[Right to repair]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="billtext">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill text) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billhistory">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (bill history) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="billvotes">{{Cite web |title=AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use (votes) |publisher=California Legislative Information |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="apcp">{{Cite web |title=AB 1921 (Ward) Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis |publisher=California State Assembly |date=2026-04-16 |url=https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2026-04/ab-1921-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="hearing">{{Cite web |title=Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, hearing on AB 1921 |publisher=California State Senate |date=2026-06-29 |url=https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-business-professions-and-economic-development-committee-20260629 |access-date=2026-06-30}} Official recording: https://vod.senate.ca.gov/videos/2026/20260629_Business_Prof_Econ_Development.mp4 (Gibbons testimony at approximately 0:06:39 to 0:08:43 and 0:16:01 to 0:17:08; committee vote and reconsideration at approximately 2:33:58 to 2:34:39).</ref>
<ref name="engadget">{{Cite web |title=A California bill that preserves access to video games achieves its first victory |last=Chen |first=Jackson |date=2026-06-01 |website=Engadget |url=https://www.engadget.com/2185206/a-california-bill-that-preserves-access-to-video-games-achieves-its-first-victory/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="esaoped">{{Cite web |title=Misguided California bill would harm video game makers, players |last=Pierre-Louis |first=Stan |date=2026-06-09 |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/opinion-misguided-california-bill-would-harm-video-game-makers-players/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gibbonsbio">{{Cite web |title=Jennifer Gibbons, Vice President, State Government Affairs |publisher=Entertainment Software Association |url=https://www.theesa.com/staff/jennifer-gibbons/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="fkks">{{Cite web |title=Sending Games to a Farm Upstate: What California's AB 1921 Could Mean for the Video Game Industry |last=McKay |first=Nathan |last2=Ling |first2=Michael |date=2026-06-23 |publisher=Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, IP & Media Law Updates |url=https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102n51f/sending-games-to-a-farm-upstate-what-californias-ab-1921-could-mean-for-the-vid |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="skg">{{Cite web |title=The Stop Killing Games Campaign |publisher=Stop Killing Games |url=https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="crew">{{Cite web |title=The Crew Is Delisted, Servers Shutting Down At The End Of March 2024 |last=Yang |first=George |date=2023-12-14 |website=GameSpot |url=https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-crew-is-delisted-servers-shutting-down-at-the-end-of-march-2024/1100-6519967/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260115204712/https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-crew-is-delisted-servers-shutting-down-at-the-end-of-march-2024/1100-6519967/ |archive-date=2026-01-15 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ab2426">{{Cite web |title=AB-2426 Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods |publisher=California Legislative Information |date=2024-09-24 |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="eci">{{Cite web |title=Stop Destroying Videogames (European Citizens' Initiative, registration number ECI(2024)000007) |publisher=European Commission |url=https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ecicomm">{{Cite web |title=Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens' Initiative 'Stop Destroying Videogames' (C(2026) 4110 final) |publisher=European Commission |date=2026-06-16 |url=https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/document/download/75d642bc-6ff5-4713-b1cf-14f4aaf15869_en?filename=C_2026_4110_EN.pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ukpetition">{{Cite web |title=Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already sold (Petition 702074) |publisher=UK Government and Parliament Petitions |date=2025-07-14 |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074 |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="minecraft">{{Cite web |title=Download Minecraft server software |publisher=Mojang Studios / Microsoft |url=https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/download/server |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="gtsport">{{Cite web |title=Notice Regarding the End of Gran Turismo Sport Online Services |publisher=Polyphony Digital |url=https://www.gran-turismo.com/us/gtsport/news/00_1344615.html |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="knockout">{{Cite web |title=Knockout City: Private Hosted Server Edition |publisher=Velan Studios |url=https://knockoutcity.com/updates/knockout-city-private-hosted-server-edition |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ignalanwake">{{Cite web |title=Upcoming Alan Wake Update Will Remove David Bowie's Space Oddity From the Soundtrack, Replace It With a New Original Song |website=IGN |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/upcoming-alan-wake-update-will-remove-david-bowies-space-oddity-from-the-soundtrack-replace-it-with-a-new-original-song |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2025">{{Cite web |title=2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/2026/2025%20Notorious%20Markets%20List%20(final).pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
<ref name="ustr2015">{{Cite web |title=2015 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR-2015-Out-of-Cycle-Review-Notorious-Markets-Final.pdf |access-date=2026-06-30}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:American legislation]]
[[Category:Digital ownership]]
[[Category:Stop Killing Games]]
[[Category:Positive laws]]

T-Mobile legacy plan retirement and Price Lock revocation (2026)

2026-06-30T06:23:20Z

Louis: new page on t-mobile retiring legacy plans and dropping the price lock, covers the per-line increases, the fcc complaints, the nad ruling, and the oddo class action

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=T-Mobile
|StartDate=2026-06-29
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Terms of Service,Price Increase,False Advertising
|Description=T-Mobile retired over 1,100 legacy billing codes in 2026, moving about 8 million customers to pricier plans and voiding its marketed Price Lock guarantee
}}

On June 29, 2026, [[T-Mobile]] began notifying customers that it was retiring more than 1,100 legacy billing codes and automatically moving the affected subscribers onto its current, higher-priced Experience plans, with no option to keep the old plan.<ref name="mashable">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile will automatically upgrade some legacy phone plans to higher-price plans |url=https://mashable.com/tech/t-mobile-automatically-upgrade-legacy-phone-plans-to-higher-price-plans |author=Chance Townsend |website=Mashable |date=2026-06-29}}</ref> Independent T-Mobile coverage put the number of affected customers at roughly 8 million.<ref name="tmoreport">{{Cite web |title=Breaking: T-Mobile to force migrate over 8 million customers to more expensive plans |url=https://tmo.report/2026/06/breaking-t-mobile-to-force-migrate-over-8-million-customers-to-more-expensive-plans/ |website=The Mobile Report |date=2026-06-29}}</ref> Many of the retired plans had been sold under an Un-contract and Price Lock promise that T-Mobile would never raise the price for as long as the customer kept the plan.<ref name="phonearena-hamid">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile explains why customers aren't allowed to sue it for raising price |url=https://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mobile-explains-why-customers-arent-allowed-to-sue-it-for-raising-price_id164060 |author=Anam Hamid |website=PhoneArena |date=2024-10-23}}</ref> T-Mobile framed the 2026 change as retiring those plans rather than raising prices,<ref name="mashable" /> and moved the affected customers onto new rates that increase phone and home internet lines by up to $6 per line per month.<ref name="sms">Customer-provided screenshots and email submitted to Rossmann Repair Group, dated June 29, 2026. The set includes the T-Mobile SMS notice received that day from short code 2541, flagged by iOS as a possible message from an unknown sender, and the customer's account of the migration timeline.</ref>

== Background ==

T-Mobile built much of its 2010s growth on a promise that its prices would not rise. The carrier marketed an Un-contract guarantee under which it said it would never raise the price of a qualifying plan for as long as the customer stayed on it.<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> A 2017 promotion for the T-Mobile One plan told customers that ''"T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan"'' and that customers alone could change it.<ref name="techdirt-loophole">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile Sued For 'Lifetime' Price Guarantee That Wasn't |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/31/t-mobile-sued-for-lifetime-price-guarantee-that-wasnt/ |author=Karl Bode |website=Techdirt |date=2024-07-31}}</ref> After the 2020 Sprint merger, T-Mobile replaced the Un-contract language with a Price Lock guarantee in 2022.<ref name="phonearena-hamid" />

The carrier's own Price Lock documentation later split the promise into narrower tiers. The Original Price Lock, for accounts activated between April 28, 2022 and January 17, 2024, said the base monthly recurring service charge would not increase, but excluded taxes, fees, promotions, per-use charges, third-party services, and network management.<ref name="tmobile-faq">{{Cite web |title=Price Lock FAQs |url=https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/price-lock-faqs |author=T-Mobile |website=T-Mobile |access-date=2026-06-29}}</ref> For accounts from January 18, 2024 to April 22, 2025, the Last Month Price Lock promised only that if T-Mobile raised the price and the customer left within 60 days, it would cover the final month's recurring charges.<ref name="tmobile-faq" /> A separate 5-Year Price Guarantee, which fixes the base price for talk, text, & 5G data for five years from activation, began on April 23, 2025.<ref name="tmobile-faq" />

T-Mobile also used the Price Lock label to sell 5G Home Internet. A customer's screenshot of t-mobile.com taken on August 14, 2023 shows the $30-per-month plan carrying a ''"PRICE LOCK GUARANTEE"'' badge with the fine print ''"EXCLUSIONS LIKE TAXES & FEES APPLY."''<ref name="ad2023">Customer-provided screenshot of t-mobile.com 5G Home Internet advertising, captured August 14, 2023. It shows the $30-per-month plan (with AutoPay and an eligible voice line) carrying a "PRICE LOCK GUARANTEE" badge and the disclaimer "EXCLUSIONS LIKE TAXES & FEES APPLY."</ref>

[[File:T-Mobile 5G Home Internet Price Lock Guarantee ad 2023.png|thumb|center|upright=1.0|A customer's screenshot of t-mobile.com taken August 14, 2023 shows the $30-per-month 5G Home Internet plan carrying a ''"PRICE LOCK GUARANTEE"'' badge with the disclaimer ''"EXCLUSIONS LIKE TAXES & FEES APPLY."''<ref name="ad2023" />]]

== The June 2026 plan retirement ==

On June 29, 2026, T-Mobile confirmed to CNET that it was automatically migrating customers off legacy plans, with notices going out by text & through the T-Life app.<ref name="mashable" /> A company representative told CNET that some of the retired plans were 10 to 15 years old and included Simple Choice, T-Mobile ONE, and grandfathered Sprint plans from the 2020 merger;<ref name="mashable" /> later coverage added the ONE Plus and Magenta families and legacy T-Mobile for Business accounts.<ref name="androidauthority">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile confirms it is killing your old plan, making some users pay more |url=https://www.androidauthority.com/t-mobile-retires-old-plans-forces-migration-3682298/ |author=Aamir Siddiqui |website=Android Authority |date=2026-06-29}}</ref> Affected customers were moved to T-Mobile's current Experience lineup, including Essentials, Experience More, and Experience Beyond.<ref name="mashable" />

In a statement to Mashable, a T-Mobile spokesperson described the change this way:
<blockquote>''We're retiring our oldest plans, some of which were built nearly 15 years ago, in the 3G and 4G eras, and well before our 5G network was fully deployed. Customers will transition to modern plans that provide access to America's best wireless technology, enhanced features and a 5-year price guarantee for peace of mind. Some customers will see no change to their monthly bill, while some will see a modest adjustment. Every customer moved to a new plan will keep their current benefits while gaining improvements in network and service experiences.''</blockquote><ref name="mashable" />

The migration was automatic and offered no way to stay on the old plan. Mashable reported that a customer who ended up on a plan they did not want could only switch to a different T-Mobile plan or change carriers.<ref name="mashable" /> Chief marketing officer Allan Samson told CNET that migrated customers would typically still pay less than a new customer would for the same plan today.<ref name="mashable" />

Mashable reported the average increase at around $4 per line.<ref name="mashable" /> The text notices customers received put the increase at up to $6 per line per month for phone and home internet lines,<ref name="sms" /> while The Desk reported tablet lines rising by $3 per line per month and documented that customers moved off the legacy T-Mobile ONE plan lost the KickBack credit, which had refunded $10 a month for each line using under 2 GB of data.<ref name="thedesk">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile to move some long-time customers onto new, more expensive plans |url=https://thedesk.net/2026/06/t-mobile-to-move-some-long-time-customers-onto-new-more-expensive-plans/ |author=Matthew Keys |website=The Desk |date=2026-06-29}}</ref>

The text message itself set a hard date:
<blockquote>''Starting 7/13/26, your current phone and home internet plans are being retired, and you will transition to modern plans with enhanced features. Phone and home internet lines increase up to $6 per line per month. ... Moving forward, you also get our 5-Year Price Guarantee.''</blockquote><ref name="sms" />
The customer who received the notice reported that the actual new bill amount would not appear until the August 2026 billing cycle, weeks after a mid-July deadline to decide whether to switch plans or change carriers.<ref name="sms" />

[[File:T-Mobile legacy plan retirement SMS notice June 2026.png|thumb|center|upright=1.0|A T-Mobile text message from short code 2541, received June 29, 2026, told the customer that ''"Starting 7/13/26, your current phone and home internet plans are being retired"'' and that phone and home internet lines would increase up to $6 per line per month.<ref name="sms" />]]

== T-Mobile's rationale ==

T-Mobile's public and internal messaging drew a line between retiring a plan and raising its price. The distinction surfaced publicly in October 2023, when leaked internal training materials showed how the carrier instructed customer service representatives to describe forced migrations. As reported by MacRumors & Techdirt, the script told representatives:
<blockquote>''We are not raising the price of any of your plans; we are moving you to a newer plan with more benefits at a different cost.''</blockquote><ref name="macrumors-csr">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile Automatically Upgrading Users to More Expensive Plans, But There's an Opt-Out Option |url=https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/11/t-mobile-plan-migration/ |author=Juli Clover |website=MacRumors |date=2023-10-11}}</ref><ref name="techdirt-csr">{{Cite web |title=Everything T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Critics Predicted Has Come True |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/17/everything-t-mobile-sprint-merger-critics-predicted-has-come-true/ |author=Karl Bode |website=Techdirt |date=2023-10-17}}</ref>

In the 2026 retirement, T-Mobile described the move as retiring plans rather than raising prices.<ref name="mashable" /> On the older promise, Techdirt wrote that T-Mobile's position was that the Price Lock obligated it only to pay a departing customer's final monthly bill if the carrier raised the price, not to keep the price itself unchanged.<ref name="techdirt-loophole" />

== Prior price increases & regulatory backlash ==

The 2026 retirement followed two earlier rounds of increases on the same legacy plans. In May 2024, T-Mobile raised prices on plans it had previously said would stay the same for life, with customers reporting increases of about $5 per line.<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> Mashable reported a further round of legacy-plan price increases in 2025.<ref name="mashable" />

PhoneArena reported that the Federal Communications Commission had received more than 2,000 complaints over the price increase, of which 900 were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, alongside 60 complaints sent to the Federal Trade Commission; the FCC did not say whether it was investigating.<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> One complaint asked how an increase of $5 per line could square with a ''"lifetime price lock."''<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> Another called the change ''"fraudulent and a direct breach of contract."''<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> PhoneArena also described one customer, John Bradshaw, who said he called T-Mobile each billing cycle and had his bill credited from $232 down to $215.<ref name="phonearena-hamid" />

T-Mobile's Price Lock advertising drew a separate, formal challenge. [[AT&T]] challenged the 5G Home Internet Price Lock claims before the BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division (NAD). On July 31, 2024, Digital Trends reported that the NAD found the advertised Price Lock did not fix the price, because the fine print offered only one free final month of service if a customer left after an increase, and recommended that T-Mobile discontinue or modify the claim.<ref name="digitaltrends-nad">{{Cite web |title=T-Mobile is getting rid of its misleading 'Price Lock' policy |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/phones/t-mobile-just-got-in-trouble-price-lock-5g-home-internet-bbb/ |author=Ajay Kumar |website=Digital Trends |date=2024-07-31}}</ref> T-Mobile said it would comply but maintained that its advertising ''"appropriately communicates the generous terms of its Price Lock policy."''<ref name="digitaltrends-nad" />

== Litigation ==

=== Oddo v. T-Mobile ===

In July 2024, four T-Mobile customers filed a proposed class action over the broken price guarantees. The complaint, ''Oddo et al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc.'', was filed on July 12, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-07719.<ref name="classaction">{{Cite web |title=Oddo et al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 2:24-cv-07719 |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/oddo-et-al-v-t-mobile-usa-inc.pdf |website=ClassAction.org |date=2024-07-12}}</ref><ref name="govinfo-njd">{{Cite web |title=ODDO et al v. T-MOBILE USA INC., 2:24-cv-07719 |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-njd-2_24-cv-07719 |website=govinfo, U.S. Government Publishing Office |access-date=2026-06-29}}</ref> The named plaintiffs are Christopher Oddo of New Jersey, Harry Hyaduck Sr. of Georgia, Larry Kahhan of Nevada, and Gerald Dwyer of Pennsylvania.<ref name="classaction" /> The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on August 28, 2025, where it was docketed as No. 2:25-cv-01651.<ref name="courtlistener-wawd">{{Cite web |title=Oddo v. T-Mobile USA Inc, No. 2:25-cv-01651 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71219936/oddo-v-t-mobile-usa-inc/ |website=CourtListener |access-date=2026-06-29}}</ref> It brings claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other states' deceptive-trade-practices laws, along with common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and common-law [[false advertising]], and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, & disgorgement of profits.<ref name="classaction" />

[[File:Oddo v T-Mobile USA class action complaint page 1.png|thumb|center|upright=1.2|The first page of the ''Oddo v. T-Mobile USA Inc.'' complaint, filed July 12, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, shows the caption and docket number 2:24-cv-07719.<ref name="classaction" />]]

The plaintiffs allege that they signed up in reliance on T-Mobile's representation that their rates were guaranteed for life or for as long as they kept the plan, and that the carrier then reversed course. The complaint alleges:
<blockquote>''in May 2024, T-Mobile, unilaterally did away with these legacy phone plans and switched Plaintiffs and the Class to more expensive plans without their consent.''</blockquote><ref name="classaction" />

=== Arbitration and class-action waiver ===

T-Mobile has moved to keep the dispute out of court, arguing that customers gave up the right to sue. As PhoneArena reported in October 2024, T-Mobile's filing contends that customers who kept using its service after a [[Terms of service|Terms and Conditions]] update dated May 15, 2023 agreed to resolve disputes through individual binding arbitration. The cited clause reads:
<blockquote>''By accepting these T&Cs, you are agreeing to resolve any dispute with us through individual binding arbitration or small claims dispute procedures (unless you opt out), and to waive your rights to a jury trial and to participate in any class action suit.''</blockquote><ref name="phonearena-hamid" />
T-Mobile described the provision as a ''"prominent, easy-to-understand arbitration agreement."''<ref name="phonearena-hamid" /> The plaintiffs say they never received the updated terms and found the [[Forced arbitration|arbitration]] clause only after their counsel searched for it.<ref name="classaction" />

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:T-Mobile]]
[[Category:Forced arbitration]]

File:Minecraft Java Edition server download page.png

2026-06-30T05:51:58Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Screenshot of the official Minecraft Java Edition server download page inviting players to set up their own multiplayer server.

source: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/download/server

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:Minecraft Java Edition server download page.png

2026-06-30T05:51:57Z

Louis: minecraft java edition server download page

minecraft java edition server download page

File:AB 1921 Senate committee hearing June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:51:53Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Still frame from the California Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee hearing on AB 1921 on June 29, 2026.

source: https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-business-professions-and-economic-development-committee-20260629

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:AB 1921 Senate committee hearing June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:51:53Z

Louis: ab 1921 senate committee hearing still

ab 1921 senate committee hearing still

File:AB 1921 committee analysis registered opposition.png

2026-06-30T05:51:51Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Screenshot of the registered support and opposition list in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis of AB 1921.

source: https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2026-04/ab-1921-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:AB 1921 committee analysis registered opposition.png

2026-06-30T05:51:51Z

Louis: ab 1921 committee analysis support and opposition list

ab 1921 committee analysis support and opposition list

File:AB 1921 Senate committee vote June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:51:48Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Screenshot of the California Legislative Information vote record for AB 1921 in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 29, 2026.

source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:AB 1921 Senate committee vote June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:51:47Z

Louis: ab 1921 senate committee vote record

ab 1921 senate committee vote record

File:AB 1921 end-of-life provisions.png

2026-06-30T05:51:46Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Screenshot of the operative section of California Assembly Bill 1921 showing the 60-day notice requirement and the end-of-life remedy options, with the key lines highlighted.

source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:AB 1921 end-of-life provisions.png

2026-06-30T05:51:45Z

Louis: ab 1921 bill text end-of-life provisions

ab 1921 bill text end-of-life provisions

File:Oddo v T-Mobile USA class action complaint page 1.png

2026-06-30T05:26:08Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
The first page of the Oddo v. T-Mobile USA Inc. class action complaint, filed July 12, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as docket 2:24-cv-07719.

source: https://www.classaction.org/media/oddo-et-al-v-t-mobile-usa-inc.pdf

Retrieved June 30, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:Oddo v T-Mobile USA class action complaint page 1.png

2026-06-30T05:26:07Z

Louis: oddo v t-mobile class action complaint first page

oddo v t-mobile class action complaint first page

File:T-Mobile legacy plan retirement SMS notice June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:25:54Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
A T-Mobile text message from short code 2541, received June 29, 2026, telling a customer that starting July 13, 2026 their phone and home internet plans are being retired with lines rising up to $6 per line per month and a 5-Year Price Guarantee going forward.

source: T-Mobile SMS notice from short code 2541, received June 29, 2026; customer screenshot submitted to Rossmann Repair Group

Retrieved June 29, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:T-Mobile legacy plan retirement SMS notice June 2026.png

2026-06-30T05:25:53Z

Louis: t-mobile plan retirement text notice from short code 2541

t-mobile plan retirement text notice from short code 2541

File:T-Mobile 5G Home Internet Price Lock Guarantee ad 2023.png

2026-06-30T05:25:32Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
A customer's August 14, 2023 screenshot of t-mobile.com 5G Home Internet showing the $30-per-month plan with a Price Lock Guarantee badge reading exclusions like taxes and fees apply.

source: https://www.t-mobile.com

Retrieved August 14, 2023

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:T-Mobile 5G Home Internet Price Lock Guarantee ad 2023.png

2026-06-30T05:25:31Z

Louis: t-mobile 5g home internet price lock guarantee marketing screenshot

t-mobile 5g home internet price lock guarantee marketing screenshot

File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-reversal-notice-2023.png

2026-06-28T19:14:11Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Sony's PlayStation Store legal page after the reversal, stating that the Discovery content removal planned for December 31, 2023 is no longer occurring.

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240101095355/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/

Retrieved January 1, 2024

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-reversal-notice-2023.png

2026-06-28T19:14:10Z

Louis: Louis uploaded a new version of File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-reversal-notice-2023.png

==Summary==
Sony's United States legal page stating the Discovery content removal planned for December 31, 2023 is no longer occurring.

source: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/

Retrieved June 28, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

Sony's attempted removal of "purchased" content

2026-06-28T19:09:37Z

Louis: --summary

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Sony
|StartDate=2022-08-31
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=
|Product=PlayStation Video
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Ownership, Terms of Service
|Description=Sony removes purchased movies & TV from PlayStation libraries when content licenses expire; 551 StudioCanal titles set for removal September 1, 2026
}}
'''[[Sony]]''' has deleted movies & television shows that customers bought through the [[PlayStation]] Store, & has scheduled the deletion of hundreds more once its license to that content ends.<ref name="verge" /><ref name="vgc2026" /> The most recent notice came in June 2026, when Sony told PlayStation users in the United Kingdom & Europe that on September 1, 2026 it would remove 551 previously purchased StudioCanal movies & TV titles from their video libraries, with no refund.<ref name="notebookcheck" /><ref name="ign" /> PlayStation's network terms state that use of words like ''purchase'' or ''buy'' ''does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership'' of the content, & that everything bought through the store is licensed on a ''non-exclusive and revocable basis''.<ref name="psntos" />

== Background ==
Sony stopped selling movies & TV shows on the PlayStation Store on August 31, 2021.<ref name="beyondgames" /> It does not own the films & shows it sold through the store; it licenses them from the studios that produce them, & has said it holds no ownership of that content.<ref name="gamesindustry" />

== September 2026 StudioCanal removal ==
In June 2026, Sony notified PlayStation users in the United Kingdom & Europe that on September 1, 2026 it would remove every StudioCanal movie & TV show they had purchased from their video libraries.<ref name="notebookcheck" /><ref name="vgc2026" /> The notice became public after an X user, @somatyk, posted the message PlayStation had sent; Kotaku & other outlets then reported it.<ref name="kotaku" /> The message read:
<blockquote>''Due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library.''</blockquote><ref name="pslifestyle" />
[[File:PlayStation-Store-StudioCanal-removal-notice-2026.png|thumb|center|upright=1.0|The PlayStation Store notice to United Kingdom and Europe accounts states that previously purchased Studio Canal content ''will be removed from your video library'' as of September 1, 2026.<ref name="notebookcheck" />]]
The list Sony posted on the PlayStation website covers 551 titles.<ref name="ign" /><ref name="notebookcheck" /><ref name="psvideo-uk" /> Affected films include Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Total Recall, Evil Dead, From Dusk Till Dawn & The Deer Hunter.<ref name="vgc2026" /><ref name="eurogamer2026" /> The removal does not extend to PlayStation libraries in the United States.<ref name="notebookcheck" /> Sony's notice made no mention of a refund or compensation.<ref name="vgc2026" /><ref name="pslifestyle" />
[[File:PlayStation-UK-StudioCanal-affected-titles-notice-2026.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|Sony's United Kingdom legal page tells buyers they ''will no longer be able to access'' their previously purchased Studio Canal content, with removal set for September 1, 2026.<ref name="psvideo-uk" />]]

== Germany and Austria removal in 2022 ==
Four years earlier, PlayStation had removed previously purchased StudioCanal films & TV shows from the libraries of customers in Germany & Austria, with the deletion taking effect on August 31, 2022.<ref name="verge" /><ref name="eurogamer2022" /> The regional notice blamed Sony's ''evolving licensing agreements with content providers''.<ref name="eurogamer2022" /> It covered 314 titles in Germany & 137 in Austria.<ref name="beyondgames" /> The deletion came a year after Sony had assured buyers that their earlier purchases would stay accessible.<ref name="verge" />

== Discovery removal and reversal ==
On December 6, 2023, the New York Times reported that purchased Discovery shows, among them MythBusters & Deadliest Catch, would be deleted from PlayStation libraries on December 31, 2023, with Sony citing its content licensing arrangements.<ref name="nyt" /> The plan reached more than 1,300 Discovery TV shows.<ref name="gamesindustry" /> The notice Sony posted on its PlayStation Store legal page read:
<blockquote>''As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library. We sincerely thank you for your continued support.''</blockquote><ref name="psvideo-removal-2023" />
[[File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-notice-2023.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|Sony's PlayStation Store legal page on December 9, 2023, telling buyers that ''you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content''.<ref name="psvideo-removal-2023" />]]

After consumer backlash, Sony reversed course.<ref name="asmdc" /> On December 21, 2023, it said it had reached an updated agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery & would keep the shows available ''for at least the next 30 months''.<ref name="gamesindustry" /> The notice on its legal page was replaced with:
<blockquote>''Due to updated licensing arrangements, the Discovery content removal planned for December 31, 2023 is no longer occurring. We appreciate your ongoing support and feedback.''</blockquote><ref name="psvideo-us" />
[[File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-reversal-notice-2023.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|Sony's United States legal page states that the ''Discovery content removal planned for December 31, 2023 is no longer occurring''.<ref name="psvideo-us" />]]
PCMag's Emily Price wrote that the agreement guaranteed access only for a set period, & that PlayStation owners could still lose the content around 2027.<ref name="pcmag" />

== "Buy" button and the PlayStation Network terms ==
The PlayStation Network [[Terms of service|Terms of Service]] govern what a customer receives when they buy a movie from the PlayStation Store, treating the transaction as a revocable license rather than a transfer of ownership.<ref name="psntos" /> Section 10.1 addresses the storefront language directly:
<blockquote>''Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.''</blockquote><ref name="psntos" />
Section 10.2 sets out the license itself:
<blockquote>''Except as stated in this Agreement, all Content provided through PlayStation is licensed on a non-exclusive and revocable basis to you for your personal, private, non-transferable, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of PlayStation Devices or other devices in the country in which your Account is registered.''</blockquote><ref name="psntos" />
[[File:PlayStation-Network-ToS-section-10-revocable-license.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|Section 10.2 of the PlayStation Network Terms of Service states that all content provided through PlayStation is ''licensed on a non-exclusive and revocable basis''.<ref name="psntos" />]]
Reviewing the September 2026 removal, Notebookcheck called it a reminder of ''the risks of purchasing digital content''.<ref name="notebookcheck" />

== California Assembly Bill 2426 ==
California's Assembly Bill 2426 requires sellers of digital goods to tell buyers when a purchase is only a license.<ref name="ab2426" /> Governor Newsom signed it on September 24, 2024 as Chapter 513, adding Section 17500.6 to the state's Business and Professions Code.<ref name="ab2426" /><ref name="asmdc" /> It took effect on January 1, 2025.<ref name="gtlaw" /> The statute makes it unlawful to sell a digital good using ownership language without a disclosure:
<blockquote>''It shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms "buy," "purchase," or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental, unless either of the following occur:''</blockquote><ref name="ab2426" />
[[File:California-AB-2426-digital-goods-operative-clause.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|California Assembly Bill 2426 provides that it shall be ''unlawful for a seller of a digital good'' to offer it for sale using terms such as buy or purchase unless the buyer is told the purchase is a license.<ref name="ab2426" />]]
A seller can comply only by getting the buyer's affirmative acknowledgment at each transaction that they are receiving a license, with the restrictions listed & a notice that access may be revoked, or by giving a clear & conspicuous statement that buying the good is a license, with a link to the full terms.<ref name="ab2426" /> The law defines a digital good to include digital movies, music, books, codes & games delivered electronically.<ref name="ab2426" /> According to an analysis by the law firm Greenberg Traurig, a violation can draw civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under California's False Advertising Law & Unfair Competition Law.<ref name="gtlaw" />

The bill's author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, cited Sony's 2023 Discovery removal as an example of purchased digital media disappearing. A statement from her office when Newsom signed the bill read:
<blockquote>''Another instance saw Sony threaten to revoke access to Discovery TV shows in 2023, only to come to an agreement with Discovery on an updated licensing agreement following consumer outcry.''</blockquote><ref name="asmdc" />

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="verge">{{Cite web |last=Porter |first=Jon |date=2022-07-08 |title=PlayStation Store removes purchased movies from libraries after service shutdown |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/8/23199861/playstation-store-film-tv-show-removed-austria-germany-studiocanal |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708090853/https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/8/23199861/playstation-store-film-tv-show-removed-austria-germany-studiocanal |archive-date=2022-07-08 |access-date=2025-03-15 |website=The Verge}}</ref>
<ref name="vgc2026">{{Cite web |date=June 2026 |title=Sony is deleting over 550 purchased movies from PS5 users' digital libraries |url=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-is-deleting-over-550-purchased-movies-from-ps5-users-digital-libraries/ |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Video Games Chronicle}}</ref>
<ref name="notebookcheck">{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Jacob |date=2026-06-28 |title=PlayStation to wipe 551 films from customers' accounts |url=https://www.notebookcheck.net/Playstation-to-wipe-551-films-from-customers-accounts.1330123.0.html |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Notebookcheck}}</ref>
<ref name="ign">{{Cite web |last=Cripe |first=Michael |date=2026-06-27 |title=Sony to Delete Movies Owned by PlayStation Users, List Includes More Than 550 Digital Titles |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-to-delete-movies-owned-by-playstation-users-list-includes-more-than-550-digital-titles |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=IGN}}</ref>
<ref name="kotaku">{{Cite web |last=Walker |first=John |date=2026-06-26 |title=PlayStation Is Deleting Terminator 2 And 550 Other Movies |url=https://kotaku.com/playstation-store-movies-digital-studio-canal-terminator-2000711013 |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Kotaku}}</ref>
<ref name="pslifestyle">{{Cite web |last=Khan |first=Zarmena |date=2026-06-26 |title=Purchased Studio Canal Content To Be Removed From PlayStation Library |url=https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2026/06/26/purchased-studio-canal-content-removed-playstation-library/ |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=PlayStation LifeStyle}}</ref>
<ref name="eurogamer2026">{{Cite web |date=2026-06-27 |title=PlayStation to remove Studio Canal movies from libraries |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/playstation-to-remove-studio-canal-movies-from-libraries |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Eurogamer}}</ref>
<ref name="psvideo-uk">{{Cite web |title=PlayStation Video Content (UK) |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/psvideocontent/ |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=PlayStation}}</ref>
<ref name="eurogamer2022">{{Cite web |date=2022-07-07 |title=Purchased Studio Canal films will be removed from PlayStation Store in Austria and Germany |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/purchased-studio-canal-films-will-be-removed-from-playstation-store-in-austria-and-germany |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Eurogamer}}</ref>
<ref name="beyondgames">{{Cite web |last=Muhammad |first=Isa |date=2022-07-11 |title=Sony removes purchased StudioCanal films from PlayStation Store |url=https://www.beyondgames.biz/24464/sony-removes-purchased-studiocanal-films-from-playstation-store/ |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=BeyondGames.biz}}</ref>
<ref name="nyt">{{Cite web |last=Medina |first=Eduardo |date=2023-12-06 |title=PlayStation Will Delete Purchased Discovery Shows |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/technology/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-removal.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207004027/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/technology/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-removal.html |archive-date=2023-12-07 |website=The New York Times}}</ref>
<ref name="psvideo-removal-2023">{{Cite web |title=Discovery Entitlements Affected Titles |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209201546/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |archive-date=2023-12-09 |url-status=dead |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=PlayStation}}</ref>
<ref name="psvideo-us">{{Cite web |title=Discovery Entitlements Affected Titles |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101095355/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |archive-date=2024-01-01 |access-date=2025-03-15 |website=PlayStation}}</ref>
<ref name="gamesindustry">{{Cite web |last=Dring |first=Christopher |date=2023-12-21 |title=PlayStation will not delete Discovery TV shows after all |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/playstation-will-not-delete-discovery-tv-shows-after-all |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221185246/https://www.gamesindustry.biz/playstation-will-not-delete-discovery-tv-shows-after-all |archive-date=2023-12-21 |access-date=2025-03-15 |website=GamesIndustry.biz}}</ref>
<ref name="pcmag">{{Cite web |last=Price |first=Emily |date=2023-12-22 |title=PlayStation Isn't Removing All That Discovery Content After All |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/playstation-isnt-removing-all-that-discovery-content-after-all |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=PCMag}}</ref>
<ref name="psntos">{{Cite web |title=PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=PlayStation}}</ref>
<ref name="ab2426">{{Cite web |title=AB-2426 Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426 |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=California Legislative Information |publisher=California State Legislature}}</ref>
<ref name="gtlaw">{{Cite web |date=December 2024 |title=AB 2426: New California Law Requires Clear Licensing Disclosures for Digital Goods |url=https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2024/12/ab-2426-new-california-law-requires-clear-licensing-disclosures-for-digital-goods |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Greenberg Traurig}}</ref>
<ref name="asmdc">{{Cite web |date=2024-09-25 |title=Governor Newsom Signs AB 2426 into Law, Increases Transparency Surrounding Disappearing Digital Media |url=https://irwin.asmdc.org/press-releases/20240925-governor-newsom-signs-ab-2426-law-increases-transparency-surrounding |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260206031309/https://irwin.asmdc.org/press-releases/20240925-governor-newsom-signs-ab-2426-law-increases-transparency-surrounding |archive-date=2026-02-06 |access-date=2026-06-28 |website=Office of Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin |publisher=California State Assembly}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Digital ownership]]
[[Category:PlayStation]]

File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-notice-2023.png

2026-06-28T19:08:29Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
Sony's PlayStation Store legal page on December 9, 2023, notifying buyers that previously purchased Discovery content would be removed from their video library as of December 31, 2023.

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20231209201546/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/

Retrieved December 9, 2023

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-notice-2023.png

2026-06-28T19:08:29Z

Louis: Louis uploaded a new version of File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-notice-2023.png

==Summary==
Sony's PlayStation legal page on December 9, 2023, stating previously purchased Discovery content would be removed from buyers' video libraries on December 31, 2023.

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20231209201546/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/

Retrieved June 28, 2026

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]

File:PlayStation-Discovery-removal-notice-2023.png

2026-06-28T18:15:57Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

2026-06-26T19:50:43Z

Louis: added the source link the image was taken from

==Summary==
The Map2Model home page after the takedown, showing the creator's statement that they received legal notices concerning the tool.

source: https://map2model.com/

Retrieved 2026-06-26

==Licensing==
{{No license}}

[[Category:Files]]