The "Stop Killing Games" movement recently released a video of its latest progress, saying that the signatures it had previously collected and verified through the EU citizens' initiative "Stop Destroying Videogames" have reached the threshold for a formal hearing by EU institutions, and confirmed that it will receive an official date to present its demands to the European Commission.
Ross Scott, one of the founders of the movement and an activist who is also the spokesperson of the movement, said in the video that core members have been working intensively behind the scenes since the signatures were met. Although there have been some adverse changes in the process, the overall outlook is "more positive" than before.
Scott revealed that as early as October last year, the EU seemed to have considered adding protection provisions for video games to the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, a new act aimed at regulating digital ethics and consumer rights. However, lobbying groups from the video game industry are clearly working ahead of schedule, and some lawmakers began to repeat common arguments in the industry during the discussion-claiming that excessive regulation will "hit small independent developers" because it is difficult for them to maintain online services for games indefinitely. In this regard, "Stop Killing Games" has clarified to the European Union: The movement does not require manufacturers to maintain servers indefinitely, but hopes that players will still have legal and feasible ways to continue playing purchased games after official support is stopped. Despite the explanation, representatives at the meeting generally felt that the European Commission was not inclined to add provisions specifically addressing game server closure issues in the Digital Fairness Act.
Scott also mentioned that the EU briefly issued a draft non-binding notice in July 2025, which was interpreted as "encouraging the gaming industry to adjust in a direction more beneficial to consumers", but it emphasized "deregulation" and essentially hoped that the industry would self-regulate. Relevant reports pointed out that this document was an unfinished version and was accidentally released in advance. The EU later stated that it would officially release a revised version in 2026. From the perspective of "Stop the Killing Game", this means that even if the upcoming formal meeting with the European Commission is crucial, the movement must be prepared for a "difficult tug-of-war".
However, there are clear benefits in the latest developments. Scott said that "Stop the Killing Game" is gaining more and more support from members of the European Parliament and is now close to or reaching majority support. This means that even if the citizen initiative ultimately fails to directly promote the introduction of new regulations, the EU Parliament itself may still promote relevant legislation to provide players with clearer legal protection when the game is removed from the shelves, suspended, or remotely "castrated". In order to further expand its influence, organize anti-lobbying and study legislative paths, the movement also plans to establish two non-governmental organizations (NGOs), located in the EU and the United States, for fundraising, public advocacy and professional legal research. The specific names have not yet been announced.
Scott also emphasized that even if all efforts for new legislation are ultimately frustrated at the EU and international levels, "Stop Killing the Game" still retains a "lower limit path": urging the EU to more strictly implement existing consumer protection regulations. The European Commission has previously stated when accepting related complaints that if a game publisher refuses to provide alternative access methods when the service is suspended, or writes a "unilateral termination of service" clause in the user agreement, it may have reached the edge of illegality, but such cases can only be heard on a case-by-case basis. Scott pointed out that this "case-by-case handling" model means more additional costs: it will not only increase the burden on the EU courts and regulatory agencies, but will also make players and companies trapped in lawsuits and disputes for a long time. He stressed that EU member states urgently need a clear and unified legal framework to define the boundaries of the rights and responsibilities of each party when a game is shut down or removed from the shelves. As of now, the "Stop Killing Games" team has not found clear enough and workable special regulations in any member state.
Overall, the "Stop the Killing Game" movement has not only received more political support in its fight for institutional change at the EU level, but also faced dual resistance from industry lobbying and institutional inertia. Between official legislation, industry self-regulation and the enforcement of existing laws, this movement is trying to strive for a stable and clear legal positioning for "players' continued access to purchased games."