Stop Killing Games-backed California bill targeting online game shutdowns "isn't going to be an easy thing" to enforce, says the politician behind it

Assemblymember Chris Ward hopes the legislation, if passed, might set in motion an instance of the "California Effect"

The main politician behind the Californian bill backed by the Stop Killing Games campaign that's currently making its way through the state's legislature has admitted that ensuring it's enforced likely won't be a walk in the park. Still, Assemblymember Chris Ward is hoping that if passed, the bill - which would see publishers shutting down servers for online games forced to provide full refunds or a version of the game players can keep on playing independently of said servers as part of the process - will have an impact which extends beyond California itself.

Assemblymember Ward made these comments during a AMA session hosted this week on the Stop Killing Games campaign's Reddit page, as the AB 1921 bill (also referred to by advocates as the Protect Our Games Act) faces scrutiny from the Californian Senate's privacy committee.

"While AB 1921 would apply only in California, its impact could extend beyond our borders through what’s often called the 'California Effect'," Ward wrote in response to a user asking whether bills like AB 1921 will ever be proposed in other US states. "Because California is such a large market, companies often choose to adjust their practices nationwide rather than create state-specific systems.

"We’ve also seen other states—and sometimes international bodies like the EU—take cues from California’s consumer protection work. For example, our efforts to address surveillance pricing helped spur similar proposals in other states, and I’m continuing that work this year with AB 2564. In that same way, there’s a real possibility AB 1921 could serve as a model for other legislatures if it proves effective here."

A couple of different people asked Ward about the prospect of enforcing AB 1921 if it's passed into law, and what sorts of penalties companies who violate it could face. "You are so right, this isn't going to be an easy thing to corral," Ward responded to a user who'd suggested in their question that enforcing the bill would be a "complicated prospect".

"Enforcement is always where strong legislation is either proven or weakened," the politician added in a separate response to another user asking about the issue. "The intent here is to make sure the attorney general’s office and local district attorneys are fully aware of the issue and have the tools to enforce the law effectively, especially given the size and impact of the gaming industry in California. In practice, enforcement and penalties scale with the severity and scope of the violation. Larger companies engaging in larger, intentional violations would face more significant penalties, while the focus of enforcement would be on addressing systemic non-compliance rather than isolated issues."

So, it'd be up to the likes of current Californian attorney general Rob Bonta to go after any publishers who didn't abide by the law. Such figures bringing legal action against game publishers and platform holders is something with plenty of precedent, with a recent example being New York state attorney general Letitia James' lawsuit against Valve over alleged violations of gambling laws via the use of loot boxes in games like Counter-Strike 2 and Team Fortress 2 being a recent example. As of writing Valve are fighting that suit.

For now, AB 1921's still in the works, with a similarly SKG-backed EU petition pushing for more consumer protections around game server shutdowns also in the midst of the lawmaking process.