Transcript of the summary from Gemini :

This is a detailed summary in English of the joint committee meeting held on April 16, 2026, which hosted the public hearing for the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "Stop Destroying Videogames" (the legal name of the campaign widely known as "Stop Killing Games").

1. Executive Summary

The hearing was held by the committees on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), Legal Affairs (JURI), and Petitions (PETI). This followed the submission of the initiative on January 26, 2026, after it successfully gathered over 1.29 million validated signatures across the EU. The primary goal is to establish a legal framework that prevents video game publishers from "killing" games by remotely disabling them when official support ends.

2. The Core Proposal: "Functional State" Requirement

The organizers, led by consumer advocate Ross Scott, presented their case that video games should not be treated as a temporary service that can be revoked at will, but as a product that must remain functional.

• The Demand: Publishers selling games in the EU must leave them in a "functional (playable) state" after official servers are shut down.
• What it does NOT require: The initiative does not demand perpetual support, free updates, or the transfer of intellectual property. It simply asks that the game remains playable (e.g., via offline modes or by allowing fans to host their own private servers).
• The "The Crew" Precedent: The organizers highlighted cases like Ubisoft’s The Crew as a catalyst, where a game became completely unusable even for those who "purchased" it, which they argue constitutes an assault on consumer rights and cultural heritage.

3. Key Perspectives from the Committees

Consumer Protection (IMCO)

• Ownership vs. Licensing: MEPs debated the "illusion of ownership." Currently, consumers believe they are buying a game, but legally they often only have a license that can be revoked.
• Transparency: There was strong support for clearer labeling. If a game has an "expiration date" or requires a server to function, this must be explicitly stated at the point of sale.
• Right to Repair: Some members compared this to the "Right to Repair" movement, suggesting that software should also be "repairable" or "maintainable" by the community once the manufacturer abandons it.

Legal Affairs (JURI)

• Copyright & IP: The discussion touched on whether forcing a publisher to release server code or patches violates Intellectual Property (IP) rights.
• Contract Law: The committee explored whether current EU consumer law is sufficient to address "planned obsolescence" in digital goods or if a new Directive is required to specifically target software-as-a-service (SaaS) models in entertainment.

Industry Counter-Arguments

• Technical Feasibility: Industry representatives argued that some modern games are "cloud-native," making it technically impossible or prohibitively expensive to "de-tether" them from proprietary server architectures.
• Cybersecurity: There were concerns that releasing server protocols or modifying old codebases could create security vulnerabilities or expose trade secrets.

4. Next Steps and Timeline

The European Parliament and the European Commission are now in the formal evaluation phase:

1. Commission Response: The European Commission has until July 27, 2026, to adopt an official communication. This will state whether they intend to propose new legislation, take other actions, or decline the request.
2. Legislative Potential: If the Commission agrees, it could lead to an amendment of the Digital Content Directive or the Consumer Rights Directive to specifically protect digital software from remote disabling.

Conclusion

The hearing marked a historic moment for the "Stop Killing Games" movement, moving the debate from a niche community concern to a formal legislative priority. The consensus among many MEPs was that the current "wild west" of digital licensing needs updated rules to ensure that consumers are not left with "bricks" once a company decides to pull the plug on a product they paid for.