Power To The Players Act

Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York announced in a press release on October 15, 2026 that he "will introduce" the Power To The Players Act, a bill that would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to write regulations "protecting consumers’ ability to own and play the video games they purchase". The release says that under the bill, buying a video game would make the buyer its owner instead of giving them a revocable license, which it says leaves players "dependent on the company’s continued support", & that games with online features would have to offer an offline mode before their servers are shut down.

Torres's release names NBA 2K25, a basketball game whose standard edition retailed for $69.99, as an example; the game's publisher, 2K, says that from January 1, 2027, owners will no longer be able to play it online or use any feature that needs 2K's servers, but can still redownload it & play its offline modes. The technology news site Engadget reported on October 15, 2026 that the bill had not yet been introduced in Congress & that it appeared, at least in spirit, to match the Stop Killing Games campaign, which it called "a movement lobbying for protecting game ownership".

Provisions

In a statement in the release, Torres said consumers "must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer" the games they buy. The release says:

By preserving consumers’ ability to own and resell their games, the bill would ensure that players can keep playing the games they paid for with friends and family for years to come.

The release says digital games "are often sold as revocable licenses rather than owned outright". In an April 17, 2024 consumer alert, the FTC wrote that a physical item someone buys is theirs, but that with a digital product "it really depends". The alert says that what someone gets when buying a digital product is "often merely a license to access the content", a fact often explained only in the fine print of terms of service that the seller "can usually change at will".

The video game news site Kotaku wrote that the bill "noticeably leaves out other types of digital media like movies and music".

NBA 2K25 shutdown

NBA 2K25 is a basketball video game from 2K, a publishing label of Take-Two Interactive; 2K announced on September 6, 2024 that the game was "now available worldwide". Kotaku wrote that NBA 2K25 was the fifth best-selling game of 2024 in the U.S. Torres's release calls the game "a clear example". The release says the servers will shut down "only two years after its initial release".

Shutdown schedule

2K's support notice "NBA 2K25: Server Sunset" was published on September 3, 2026 & updated on October 2, 2026. It says the game "will no longer be available for purchase as of October 30, 2026" & that NBA 2K25 will be discontinued as of December 31, 2026.

As of January 1, 2027, the notice says, "you'll no longer be able to play multiplayer games or access any online game modes", & "it will no longer be possible to earn Virtual Currency (VC)". VC is the game's in-game currency, which players are also able to "spend real money on", according to 2K. The news site Video Games Chronicle described MyCAREER as "a single-player story mode" & wrote that a player's progression "is tied to the VC premium currency", which "means when that shuts down, the career mode shuts down too".

In MyTEAM, 2K's description says, players "assemble an elite lineup". The notice says MyCAREER & MyTEAM will no longer be available. The notice says "any features that require a connection to 2K servers will be unavailable", including "multiplayer, Online Leagues, and community sharing". If they already own the game, players will still be able to redownload it & play offline modes, & the notice says they "will still be able to enjoy Play Now, MyNBA, The W, and MyWNBA".

2K's online services status page lists NBA 2K25's online features and services as "scheduled to be available until 31 December 2026". A copy of the same page updated September 11, 2024 & archived on September 18, 2024 carried the same line. The gaming news site Dexerto reported that NBA 2K22, 2K23 & 2K24 "each went dark on December 31, roughly 28 months after launch".

Prices and in-game currency

2K's July 10, 2024 announcement said the Standard Edition would be available for $69.99, or $59.99 on Nintendo Switch. The All-Star Edition would be available for $99.99, & the announcement says it includes 100,000 VC & MyTEAM content.

According to 2K, "VC is spent within the game store", on items including virtual uniforms & equipment, apparel & animation packages that "grant your character new moves to perform". Players can also earn VC by playing online matches or progressing through MyCAREER, but they must be connected to the internet for it to be accrued. VC cannot be moved between different entries in the NBA 2K series, according to 2K.

Take-Two's Terms of Service, last updated February 28, 2025, define Virtual Items to include "any in-game virtual currency". The terms say the Services, Virtual Items or the user's Account, "excluding any tangible medium the Services may be supplied on, are licensed, not sold", & that the user has "no ownership or other rights" in any Virtual Items or their Account. Under the terms, Take-Two may "sunset, or terminate" any of its Services or Virtual Items "for a valid reason".

Legislative status

Kotaku wrote that the legislation "needs to be formally introduced in Congress" and will then go through a committee process it called "long and arduous". According to Kotaku:

Torres did not confirm if the bill will have any cosponsors or whether any of his Republican colleagues will sign on to support it.

The technology news site Ars Technica reported on October 16, 2026 that "the full text of the bill is not yet publicly available" & that it is "not yet possible to assess its effectiveness or enforceability".

Stop Killing Games and the European initiative

Stop Killing Games describes itself as "A decentralized global initiative demanding legal consumer protections against the intentional destruction of video games". The newspaper The Guardian reported that YouTuber Ross Scott started the campaign in 2024, after Ubisoft announced it was shutting down The Crew, an online-only racing game. Kotaku wrote that the bill's broad strokes are "essentially what many gamers have spent the last year begging for" & that this movement "began with the Stop Killing Games advocacy group".

In a notice dated December 14, 2023, Ubisoft said that The Crew, including all its editions & virtual currency packs, would be delisted from all online stores that day, that the game would remain playable until March 31, 2024, & that its servers would then be shut down, calling this "a necessity due to upcoming server infrastructure and licensing constraints". The technology news site Tom's Hardware wrote that Ubisoft shut The Crew down "for server upkeep, making it unplayable even for those who had recently purchased it".

Initiative demands and signatures

The European Commission examines a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) once it reaches thresholds that include "the support of at least one million citizens of the Union" from at least one quarter of the Member States. The initiative "Stop Destroying Videogames", registered as ECI(2024)000007 on June 19, 2024, is the 14th ECI submitted to the Commission for examination after reaching those thresholds. Its organizers' registered objectives call for requiring "publishers that sell or license videogames" to consumers in the European Union (EU) "to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state", & seek to prevent the remote disabling of games before publishers provide "reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames" that work "without the involvement from the side of the publisher". The objectives also state:

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

The organizers collected the required statements of support, or signatures, between July 31, 2024 and July 31, 2025. The initiative was submitted to the Commission on January 26, 2026 after gathering 1,294,188 verified statements of support, & it was presented at a public hearing at the European Parliament on April 16, 2026; Parliament held a plenary debate on it on May 21, 2026. According to the Commission, the organizers stressed on these occasions that their initiative "only targeted games yet to be developed".

European Commission answer

On June 16, 2026 the Commission adopted Communication C(2026) 4110 in response to the initiative. The communication concludes that a proposal for a legal act obliging "publishers that sell or license video games" to consumers in the EU to keep them in a playable state, "as requested by the ECI, would not be proportionate". The Commission's press release said that "at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable", adding that this was due "also, to existing intellectual property rights".

The communication reports that industry representatives, Video Games Europe & the European Games Developer Federation, "expressed strong reservations" about a general legal obligation to keep games playable, & that they argued such an obligation "would significantly affect existing development and business models". The Commission wrote that EU consumer protection legislation sets no "specific requirements for the duration of the supply of digital content and services", including online video games, & does not require traders to ensure that consumers can keep using them once their commercial supply has ended. It also wrote that "Evidence suggests that few publishers take steps to keep games playable" & that communities more often keep games playable by "reverse-engineering them or building fan-run private servers".

Under existing law, the Commission wrote, a discontinuation of digital content or a digital service "can constitute a lack of conformity with the contract" when the trader ends supply "sooner than the consumer may reasonably expect". Its press release said consumers "may be entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases", a right the communication describes as applying "under certain conditions". The communication says:

... the Commission intends to initiate stakeholder exchanges by the end of 2026 to explore the possibility of elaborating a self-regulatory/industry-led code of conduct to improve the management of video games’ end-of-life and strengthen transparency to consumers.

The Commission also said it "will report on the application of the Directive on digital content and digital services" before the end of 2026.

Michael McGrath, the Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, said in the press release that if video game providers stop providing a game "earlier than stipulated in the contract or earlier than consumers could reasonably expect", players "should be appropriately reimbursed". Henna Virkkunen, the Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said she hoped the industry "will listen to player communities and agree on better sunsetting standards".

In a June 19, 2026 article, The Guardian reported that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot met European Commissioners & the trade organization Video Games Europe on June 3 "to discuss digital policy", & that Stop Killing Games would lobby for inclusion in "a forthcoming piece of legislation aiming to regulate manipulative practices online", the Digital Fairness Act. Dexerto reported:

In a response posted after the Commission’s decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was “not unexpected” and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead.

California and Pennsylvania bills

AB 1921

California's Assembly Bill 1921 (AB 1921), the Protect Our Games Act, was introduced by Assembly Member Ward on February 12, 2026, & its current text was amended in the Senate on June 23, 2026. The bill text defines who it would cover:

“Digital game operator” means a publisher, developer, or other person or entity that controls whether a purchaser of a digital game can make ordinary use of the digital game, including, but not limited to, controlling authentication systems, server access, digital rights management, or required software updates.

It defines "ordinary use" as "a purchaser’s ability to use the core features of a digital game", consistent with the reasonable expectations a purchaser would form from how the operator advertised, marketed or otherwise described the game at the time of purchase. Sixty days before it ceases "to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game", an operator would have to tell purchasers & prospective purchasers the date on which those services will cease, by notifying purchasers directly through the game & posting the information publicly on its website. From the date those services end, the operator would have to provide the purchaser with "one or more of the following":

• a version of the game the purchaser can use "independent of services controlled by the operator"
• a "patch or update to the purchaser’s version of the digital game" that enables its continued use "independent of services controlled by the operator"
• a refund equal to the highest price the operator offered for the game within the 12 months before it ceases providing the services necessary for its ordinary use
• "All necessary documentation to allow the purchaser to host a private or community server" for "ordinary use of the game independent of services controlled by the operator"
• a version of server software the game may connect to for ordinary use independent of other ongoing services; if that software has additional hardware or software requirements, this option would "apply only if the operator has communicated that fact to the purchaser" & the requirements are reasonably attainable when the operator's services cease

The requirements would apply only to digital games first available for purchase, or rereleased for purchase, on or after January 1, 2028. Any subscription-based service that offers access to a game "solely for the duration of the subscription" would be exempt, as would any game offered "for no monetary consideration" & any game the seller "cannot revoke access to after the transaction", which the bill says includes making the game available at the time of purchase "for permanent offline download to an external storage source" for use without an internet connection. Actions under the act could be prosecuted exclusively as civil actions brought "in the name of the people of the State of California" by the Attorney General or by any district attorney.

AB 1921 passed the Assembly 43 to 16 on May 27, 2026. On June 22, 2026, the Senate's Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection committee voted 6 to 2 to pass it & re-refer it to the Senate's Business, Professions and Economic Development committee. The Privacy committee's analysis said the amendments the author had agreed to would remove the full refund provision & instead give operators the option of a refund based on the highest price offered for the game within the last 12 months, & would delay implementation by another year.

At the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee's hearing on June 29, 2026, the motion "Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]" failed with four ayes & three noes; the vote record lists four other members, Archuleta, Grayson, Menjivar & Smallwood-Cuevas, under "NVR", which the vote page expands as "Absent, Abstaining, or Not Voting". The committee voted 11 to 0 the same day to grant reconsideration. The Legislature's status page lists the bill's type of measure as "Active Bill - In Committee Process".

According to the author's statement in the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee's analysis, AB 1921 is an "author-sponsored bill, but Stop Killing Games and Consumer Reports have provided assistance throughout the process". The analysis lists one organization in opposition, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a video game industry trade group. The ESA, as quoted in that analysis, wrote: "Mandating patches, offline versions, community-server functionality, or refunds in all circumstances is unworkable." It also wrote:

By effectively requiring publishers to modify, reproduce, distribute, or facilitate continued operation of games after support has ended, AB 1921 would compel creators to make copyrighted works available on state-mandated terms rather than their own.

In the Privacy committee's analysis, the ESA is quoted as writing that consumers "receive a license to access and use a game" & do not hold "an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work". Stop Killing Games, whose statement the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee's analysis also quotes, wrote that the bill "does not give consumers ownership of the underlying copyrighted work".

Tom's Hardware reported that the ESA told a California Senate committee that "private and community servers are illegal and amount to piracy", with "ESA vice president of state government affairs" Jennifer Gibbons making the claim "about software that publishers provide themselves". The European Commission's communication on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative names AB 1921 as a bill "being considered by the California legislature addressing the discontinuation of video games".

AB 2426

California's AB 2426, by Assembly Member Irwin, was approved by the Governor & filed with the Secretary of State on September 24, 2024, becoming Chapter 513, Statutes of 2024. It adds Section 17500.6 to the Business and Professions Code & took effect on January 1, 2025.

The section defines a "digital good" to include a digital book, a digital audio work & a digital application or game. The section provides:

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:

Either the seller receives from the purchaser, at the time of each transaction, an affirmative acknowledgment indicating, among other points, that "the purchaser is receiving a license to access the digital good" &, if applicable, that the seller may unilaterally revoke access if it no longer holds a right to the good; or the "seller provides to the consumer before executing each transaction a clear and conspicuous statement" that, among other points, states in plain language that "buying" or "purchasing" the digital good is a license. The section's exemptions include a digital good offered "for no monetary consideration" & one that the seller "cannot revoke access to after the transaction", which includes making it available at the time of purchase "for permanent offline download to an external storage source" for use without an internet connection. The European Commission's communication states:

A law adopted in 2024 aims to improve transparency in digital markets by requiring traders to clearly inform consumers when digital purchases confer only a license to access content, rather than ownership rights.

Its footnote to that sentence names California Assembly Bill No 2426 (2024).

Pennsylvania co-sponsorship memo

On September 18, 2026, Pennsylvania Senator John Kane circulated a co-sponsorship memo, a memo seeking legislative support for a proposed Protect Our Games Act, to all Senate members. Kane wrote: "At the request of constituents, I will soon introduce the Protect Our Games Act". The memo's page states: "This document has not been submitted for introduction yet."

Under the memo's proposal, a video game manufacturer would have to give 60 days' notice if it intends to stop allowing the use of a digital game or to change its features. The company would also have to give the purchaser one or more of three options: the ability to use the game offline; a patch "to continue using the game online" independent of the company's online gaming services; or a refund equal to the highest price the digital game operator offered for the game within the 12 months before it ceases providing services for the ordinary use of the game. The memo says the refund "cannot fall below 25% of the initial sale price of the game" & that the act "will be enforced by the PA Attorney General and District Attorneys". "Exemptions are given for the following", the memo says: subscription services that offer access to a game "solely for the duration of the subscription", games offered for no money unless the person "has made purchases or invested money to upgrade characters or unlock features within the game", & games the seller "cannot revoke access to after the transaction".

Federal, European and California proposals compared

Ownership and shutdown rules in three proposals

	Power To The Players Act	Stop Destroying Videogames initiative	California AB 1921
End of online support	Games with online functionality would have to offer an offline mode "before the servers supporting them are shut down"	The organizers' objectives call for requiring "publishers that sell or license videogames" to consumers in the EU "to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state"	Sixty days' notice of the date the services will cease, then "one or more of the following", including a version usable "independent of services controlled by the operator" or a refund
Games covered	Video games; Kotaku wrote that the bill "noticeably leaves out other types of digital media like movies and music"	According to the Commission, the organizers stressed that the initiative "only targeted games yet to be developed"	Only digital games first available for purchase, or rereleased for purchase, on or after January 1, 2028; a subscription service offering access "solely for the duration of the subscription", a game offered "for no monetary consideration" & a game the seller "cannot revoke access to after the transaction" would be exempt
Rulemaking and enforcement	The Federal Trade Commission, which the bill would direct to set regulations	A proposal for a legal act, as the initiative requested	Actions could be prosecuted exclusively as civil actions brought by the Attorney General or any district attorney
Status	Announced October 15, 2026; "hasn't been introduced in Congress yet", Engadget reported	On June 16, 2026 the Commission concluded that a proposal for a legal act, "as requested by the ECI, would not be proportionate"	"Do pass" motion failed June 29, 2026; reconsideration granted

Questions raised in coverage

FTC rulemaking authority

Engadget wrote that relying on the FTC to regulate is "far less of a sure thing than it used to be". Following "a 2024 Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron deference", the outlet wrote, the FTC and other agencies "have far less power". Engadget described Chevron deference as "a legal doctrine that directed courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretation" of potentially ambiguous legislation. Under that new understanding of the law, it wrote, the FTC's attempts to regulate the game industry "could be blocked in the same way its ban on noncompete clauses was", by one judge deciding that the FTC lacks the authority to set rules.

The video game publication PC Gamer wrote that "Realistically, the FTC is not going to mandate the eradication of software copy protection", so that if passed the bill "would presumably arrive at a softer definition of ownership".

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, decided June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court held that "Chevron is overruled". The opinion states that under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law "simply because a statute is ambiguous".

On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas set aside the FTC's Non-Compete Rule in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission (No. 3:24-cv-00986-E), concluding that "the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule" and that the rule is "arbitrary and capricious". The court quoted the Supreme Court's explanation that this standard "requires that agency action be reasonable and reasonably explained". It ordered that the rule "shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter". The court wrote that, by a plain reading, Section 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act "does not expressly grant the Commission authority to promulgate substantive rules" regarding unfair methods of competition.

On September 5, 2025, the FTC moved to drop its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC and Properties of the Villages v. FTC and to "accede to the vacatur", accepting the court order that set aside what it called the Non-Compete Clause Rule; the release says the district court "prohibited enforcement of the Rule". The FTC voted 3 to 1 to dismiss the appeal and accede to the vacatur. The FTC's page for the rule states: "The Noncompete Rule is not in effect and it is not enforceable."

First-sale doctrine and resale

The technology news site TechSpot called the first-sale doctrine "the rule that lets you resell a used disc", & the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has called 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) "the current codification of the first sale doctrine". Subsection (a) of § 109 opens "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3)" and provides that "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title", or any person that owner authorizes, is entitled without the authority of the copyright owner "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord".

TechSpot wrote that the bill "goes after the license model itself" and that a right to transfer "implies a resale market for digital games, something no major storefront allows today". It added that "US courts have generally held" that software sold under a license is not covered by the first-sale doctrine.

Even if the bill passes, the technology news site Digital Trends wrote, that "doesn't automatically mean digital games will become freely resellable like used discs". Tom's Hardware wrote that it did not know whether the right to transfer Torres mentions "is mandatory for digital purchases", though it "will likely be relevant for physical copies". Kotaku's Ethan Gach named "how to facilitate the trading of digital games" as another open question.

Offline-mode feasibility

Ars Technica wrote that the announcement "does not say the bill requires online servers to remain online", but that it would require normally online-only games to offer offline modes of play. "The way some online games are engineered, that may not be feasible", Ars wrote. According to Ars, some prior proposed legislation on the issue required developers to keep servers running indefinitely, "leading to criticism that those bills' authors don't understand the cost". Digital Trends wrote that making old games playable "isn't always as simple as flipping an offline switch", and that some games rely on online infrastructure, licensed content, or systems "that were never designed to work without a server".

Gach wrote that "One big question is whether exceptions would be allowed for certain online multiplayer-only releases", or whether such games would all have to support a connection letting third parties keep hosting matches "long after the company that shipped the game has moved on". The gaming news site GAMINGbible called games offered through subscription services "The only possible loophole in Torres' bill", writing that PlayStation Plus and Xbox Game Pass are "very transparent about you not actually owning the game".

Statements and commentary

In the statement announcing the bill, Torres said:

A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase. It is a rental disguised as a sale.

Torres interview with Kotaku

Torres told Kotaku in a phone interview that he thinks there "should be a simple rule: if you pay for it, you own it". Kotaku wrote:

Torres said rather than some radical transformation of video game ownership, his bill would be a "restoration to the historical norm" of buying and playing games that existed all the way through the '80s, '90s, and 2000s.

Torres also called it an "affordability issue" as prices rise across the economy, & said he hopes "we can set a precedent that will be followed elsewhere in the digital economy".

News outlet commentary

Kotaku's Ethan Gach wrote that "the devil will be in the details", that the big publishers are "likely to lobby hard against any restrictions on how they make or sell games", & that an estimated "87 percent of legislation never even gets put to a full vote".

TechSpot's Julio Franco called the proposal "short on detail and long on obstacles" but "the first federal attempt to answer a question the industry would rather leave alone". He wrote that publishers "have already shown they will spend real money fighting proposals far narrower than this one".

Engadget's Ian Carlos Campbell wrote:

Torres' bill could die in committee, just like a California bill that offered similar protections at the state level did in June.

Will McCurdy of the technology news site PCMag wrote that European gamers "haven't had the best luck when it comes to lobbying governments" to secure long-term ownership of their games, "but Americans might well have a shot".

Writing on October 16, 2026, Scott Duwe of the video game news site Destructoid called Torres the latest politician to call attention to publishers' practices with revocable digital game licenses, "whether for political points or otherwise". Duwe also noted that "it is election season, and Torres is currently running for reelection".

See also

• Entertainment Software Association testimony on AB 1921
• Right to own
• Format abandonment
• Video game preservation
• List of 'dead' games
• Click-to-cancel