Entertainment Software Association testimony on AB 1921 - Revision history

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

2026-06-30T07:38:36Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 30 June 2026
Line 49:		Line 49:

	== Committee vote ==		== 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" />		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" />]]		[[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" />]]
Line 69:		Line 77:
	<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="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="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>		</references>

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

2026-06-30T07:19:26Z

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

New page

{{#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]]