If an online games store says you’re buying a game, you actually have to be buying the game for good—at least, according to a new bill in California that just passed.
The bill, “AB 2426,” titled “Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods,” states that any company selling products in the state of California must directly, clearly, and conspicuously state if a “license” to a digital product is being purchased. If it's a revocable access to a product, it must be described as a license. If a user can perpetually download it and keep it offline, it's considered a proper product purchase.
It’s a direct consequence of incidents such as Ubisoft’s The Crew being shut down, with zero access to any of its software and all licenses to the beloved racing game revoked. Because of the nature of the game being perpetually online, despite being playable as a single-player game, Ubisoft turned off the servers and made the game non-downloadable, enraging long-time players and causing controversy in the industry altogether.
The bill looks to curb “false advertising” such as this, ensuring that players know whether their access to such games is revocable or temporary—especially when they shouldn’t be.
“Clear,” “conspicuous,” and separate from all else
Plainly, the seller must include a “clear and conspicuous statement” that “buying or purchasing the digital good is a license,” separate from any other terms and conditions. Sellers can’t sell a license to a digital good “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.”
The requirements won’t apply to any items with a subscription-based license (probably such as MMORPGs), free digital goods, or anything that you can, in fact, buy with unrestricted, irrevocable access and ability to store offline (which is the definition of “buying,” last we checked).
Basically? If you’re in California, “buying” a game, movie, song, or whatever has to actually be a purchase that you can perpetually access. Otherwise, they need to outline that it’s a “license” to the “digital good.”
The ongoing battle for digital ownership rights
A class action lawsuit against Amazon was attempted back in 2021 about this exact issue on Amazon Prime, though it was dismissed in part because the main plaintiff hadn’t actually had any movies revoked (yet). This March, another federal judge reviewed the case, saying there was some standing to the plaintiffs’ arguments; the status remains unknown of this case.
Not long after, it's arguable that Sony started the timeline towards this bill after it stopped its movie and show purchase and rental storefront back in 2021. At the time, it was more clear that purchased shows could still be downloaded and watched. However, in Germany and Austria in mid-2022, access was revoked to titles distributed by Studio Canal (including titles like The Hunger Games series, Apocalypse Now, the Saw franchise, and All Dogs Go To Heaven).
Then late last year, Sony announced it’d revoke access to Discovery titles, though that was quickly walked back.
Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, the main sponsor of the bill, told reporter Stephen Totilo for Game File that the Discovery controversy was the “main story that brought this issue to my attention,” and that incidents such as Ubisoft’s removal of access to The Crew “further highlighted just how widespread this issue is.”
Consequences for games—and all media
This bill is an important step for wider digital ownership rights advocacy, as this legislation doesn’t only apply to video games, but also to any fixed “digital good” that’s implied as being purchased, including books, shows, music, and more. It doesn’t force these services to make you buy, but it’s a start for awareness about how much of a stronghold publishers have in these affairs.
One possible concern is that this bill doesn’t include streamed services, meaning that next time HBO/Max decides to suddenly, without warning, nuke a swathe of shows, including some never to be seen again, it’s still kosher.
The same may become an issue as certain publishers similarly bring their operations online and pivot toward subscriptions, digital storefronts, and live service games. Platforms such as Xbox Games Pass or Playstation’s Classics collections become primary distribution systems—and as these console makers remove physical CD ports. As it stands, if you subscribe to Xbox Games Pass, for example, and there's a game on there that's excluisvely on Xbox Games Pass, Microsoft probably reserves the right to nuke it out of public existence (so long as it doesn't cause a legal fight with the studio) given it's an exempted subscription.
The control over ownership, downloads, and digital property does have immense consequences for those who have a passion for games. The Video Game History Foundation estimated in a report that 87% of “classic” video games up to 2009 are “not in release,” and thus are “critically endangered.” At the moment, by law, archived video games, such as those kept in libraries, can only be played in-person—the only type of archived media with this restriction. The report claims the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, as you may know it) “has consistently fought against expanding video game preservation within libraries and archives.”
The ESA is tracked on non-profit democratic advocacy group CalMatters’ site as being staunchly “Against” the newly-passed digital false advertising bill.
Even beyond the obvious, recent issues at hand due to digital storefronts, access to “online” titles has always been an issue in flux. Fans of the MMORPG genre are always fighting to keep their favorites online, going so far as to launch private servers, with mixed reception from publishers.
However, MMORPGs and live-service games are typically more transparent about these purchases being a “license” in terms and conditions, especially given the ability to ban players or just shut down support altogether. This bill essentially pushes all games to be required to be similarly, arguably even more, transparent about the license.
