Lawmaker Proposes Federal Bill Granting Gamers Ownership Rights
A U.S. Representative plans to introduce legislation that would grant players full ownership of games they purchase, require offline modes before servers are shut down, and allow for the transfer and resale of digital titles. The bill has not yet been formally submitted to Congress, and similar efforts in California and the European Union have faced hurdles, with Sony also engaged in ongoing legal battles.
“Power To The Players Act” Aims for Consumer Rights
Representative Ritchie Torres, a Democrat representing New York’s 15th congressional district, has announced his intention to introduce the “Power To The Players Act.” According to a press release from Torres’s office on October 15, the bill would stipulate that when consumers buy a game, they acquire ownership rather than just a license to play. For games with online functionalities, an offline mode must be provided before server shutdown. However, the full text of the bill has not yet been released, and it has not been formally introduced in the House of Representatives.
The proposed legislation would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish rules safeguarding consumers’ rights to own and play the games they purchase. Torres highlighted the industry’s shift towards digital-only games and consoles, often sold as “revocable licenses” rather than outright purchases.
Digital Game Sales Under Scrutiny
The press release cited NBA 2K25 as an example, noting that the standard edition costs $69.99 and the All-Star edition $99.99. These digital versions are slated to be removed from digital storefronts on October 30 and their online servers will be shut down on December 31, less than two years after their initial release.
Beyond ownership and offline modes, the bill also aims to preserve consumers’ ability to resell games, allowing players to continue enjoying their purchased titles with friends and family.
Torres stated in the press release, “When you pay for a game, you should own it.” He further elaborated, “Consumers must have the right to own, play, and transfer the games they buy.” He characterized the current practice as a “rental disguised as a purchase,” where games are taken away once a company “pulls the plug.”
Previous Attempts Face Roadblocks
Details regarding the precise definitions of “ownership,” the mechanics of resale, and the extent of offline mode requirements remain unclear as the full bill has not been made public.
Similar legislative efforts have been attempted at the state level and within the European Union, but none have yet been successfully enacted.
In California, Assembly Bill 1921, introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward, would have required publishers to provide advance notice before discontinuing service and to offer either a standalone playable version or a refund. While the bill passed the State Assembly and a Senate committee, it ultimately failed to advance in another Senate committee on June 29. Despite an opportunity for reconsideration, no further action was taken, and California’s legislative session concluded on August 31.
In Pennsylvania, State Senator John Kane is in the early stages of preparing to introduce the “Protect Our Games Act.” This state bill would mandate that publishers provide at least 60 days’ notice to players before terminating game access or altering functionalities, and offer remedies such as offline play, patches for continued operation, or refunds. The proposal is currently seeking co-sponsors and has not yet been formally introduced.
In Europe, the “Stop Killing Games” movement, a European Citizens’ Initiative, gathered approximately 1.29 million valid signatures. However, the European Commission’s formal response in June 2026 did not result in new legislation but rather a commitment to dialogue with industry and consumer groups to promote voluntary codes of conduct.
Legal Challenges Emerge
Another front in this debate is the courtroom. A class-action lawsuit filed on June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:26-cv-06016) alleges that Sony Interactive Entertainment’s PlayStation Store “buy” button misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing ownership, thereby violating California’s AB 2426, which requires clear disclosure for digital goods sold as revocable licenses.
Sony has moved to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, or dismiss the case. A hearing originally scheduled for October 1 was postponed to October 29 by Judge Vince Chhabria. Both parties also requested a stay on other litigation matters on October 8 pending the outcome of Sony’s motion.
Legislative Hurdles and Future Outlook
The timeline for legislative action presents a significant challenge. The 119th Congress of the United States concludes on January 3, 2027, at which point any unpassed legislation expires. Torres’s announcement comes less than three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, and with the bill not yet formally introduced, its passage through the current congressional session is highly unlikely.
The more immediate significance of Torres’s proposal lies in elevating the issue to the federal level, potentially paving the way for its reintroduction next year. Even if the bill were to pass, the FTC would be tasked with establishing detailed regulations, meaning the specifics of offline modes and resale operations would still require considerable development. The stalled progress of similar legislation in California, the EU’s decision against new laws, and Pennsylvania’s ongoing efforts to gather support all underscore the difficulty in implementing such regulations.
