Summary#
The Protect Our Games Act would create a new Pennsylvania law; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to protect buyers when a game operator stops services needed for ordinary use. The bill is introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect 60 days later, but its main rules cover games first offered or rereleased for purchase on or after January 1, 2028.
- Game operators (publishers, developers, or others who control whether buyers can use a game) would have to give 60 days’ notice before ending services needed for ordinary use. Notice must include the end date, affected services and features, known security risks, and how buyers can keep using the game or get a refund.
- When those services end, an operator would have to provide one or more options: a usable game version, a patch, a refund, documentation for hosting a private or community server, or server software that meets the bill’s conditions. The operator—not the buyer—may choose which option or options to provide.
- After ending the necessary services, an operator could not sell, lease, or otherwise distribute a version that buyers cannot use independently of the operator’s services.
- Subscription-only game access and some games offered free of charge are exempt. A free game with at least $50 spent on upgrades or features must meet the continued-use requirements; how that interacts with the notice rule is unclear.
- The Attorney General or a district attorney could bring a civil case. Penalties would be $1,000 for a first violation, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for a third or later violation.
What it means for you#
- People who buy covered games: If an operator ends services needed for ordinary use, it must give the required notice and provide at least one of the listed ways to keep using the game or receive a refund. The refund must be at least 25% of the game’s initial sale price on its release date and equal to the highest price the operator offered in the prior 12 months.
- Game operators: They would have to give notice, provide one or more of the listed options when services end, and stop distributing versions that cannot then be used without their services. General-purpose hosting, cloud, storage, network, and marketplace providers are excluded if they do not control whether buyers can use the game.
- People who buy subscription-only access or games that cannot be revoked after purchase: The bill’s rules would not apply to those games.
- Buyers seeking enforcement: The bill gives enforcement authority to the Attorney General and district attorneys. It does not authorize buyers to bring an action under this Act themselves.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated public cost or expected savings.
- The bill includes no funding appropriation or cost estimate.
- Operators may face costs for notice, preparing game versions or patches, providing server materials, or issuing refunds; the bill does not estimate these costs.
- Operators found in violation would face civil penalties and would have to pay the attorney fees and investigative costs of the Attorney General or district attorney who brings the action.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set out how buyers claim a refund or receive a game version, patch, or server materials, or how quickly an operator must provide them.
- It does not say how a court should count violations—for example, whether each affected buyer or each failure counts separately.
- A free game with at least $50 in upgrade or feature purchases must follow the continued-use rules, but the bill does not clearly say whether the notice rules also apply.
- The bill does not explain how its requirements interact with existing consumer-protection laws. Those laws were not supplied, so their current protections and any overlap could not be verified.
- The bill does not define how to resolve disputes about a game’s “ordinary use” or what refund method or timing is required.
Case for#
- The bill is aimed at a problem described in its findings: buyers may lose access to a game when services controlled by its operator stop.
- Notice could give buyers advance warning of the end date, lost features, and known security risks.
- Requiring an operator to offer at least one continued-use or refund option could leave buyers with a remedy when service ends.
- The options allow different ways to preserve use, including offline versions, patches, server materials, or refunds.
Case against#
- Because operators may choose the option, a buyer might receive a technical way to keep using a game rather than a refund.
- The bill does not spell out the process or deadlines for providing the promised option, which could make it harder to know how buyers obtain it.
- The terms “ordinary use” and “reasonably attainable” are not given detailed tests; disputes over them could make compliance uncertain.
- The bill’s exclusions and the unclear treatment of free games with in-game purchases may leave some buyers unsure whether they are covered.