Komisjoni teatis - C(2026) 4110

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 16.6.2026

C(2026) 4110 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’

1

1. INTRODUCTION: THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE

‘Stop Destroying Videogames’ is the 14th European citizens’ initiative (ECI) submitted to the

Commission for examination after reaching the thresholds1 required by the Treaty on European

Union and Regulation (EU) 2019/7882 (‘the ECI Regulation’).

The organisers describe their objectives as follows.

Videogames have grown into an industry with billions of customers worth hundreds of billions of

euros. During this time, a specific business practice in the industry has been slowly emerging that

is not only an assault on basic consumer rights but is destroying the medium itself.

An increasing number of publishers are selling videogames that are required to connect through

the internet to the game publisher, or “phone home” to function. While this is not a problem in

itself, when support ends for these types of games, very often publishers simply sever the connection

necessary for the game to function, proceed to destroy all working copies of the game, and

implement extensive measures to prevent the customer from repairing the game in any way.

This practice is effectively robbing customers of their purchases and makes restoration impossible.

Besides being an affront on consumer rights, videogames themselves are unique creative works.

Like film, or music, one cannot be simply substituted with another. By destroying them, it represents

a creative loss for everyone involved and erases history in ways not possible in other mediums.

Existing laws and consumer agencies are ill-prepared to protect customers against this practice.

The ability for a company to destroy an item it has already sold to the customer long after the fact

is not something that normally occurs in other industries. With license agreements required to

simply run the game, many existing consumer protections are circumvented. This practice

challenges the concept of ownership itself, where the customer is left with nothing after “buying”

a game.

This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the

European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said

videogames in a functional (playable) state.

Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers,

before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the

involvement from the side of the publisher.

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights

or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said

videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

1 Article 3 of the ECI Regulation states that: ‘An initiative is valid if: (a) it has received the support of at least one million citizens

of the Union in accordance with Article 2(1) (‘signatories’) from at least one quarter of the Member States; and (b) in at least one

quarter of the Member States, the number of signatories is at least equal to the minimum number set out in Annex I, corresponding

to the number of the Members of the European Parliament elected in each Member State, multiplied by the total number of Members

of the European Parliament, at the time of registration of the initiative.’ 2 Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative,

OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 55.

2

Following the organisers’ request on 4 May 2024, the Commission registered the initiative on

19 June 2024 3 . The Commission made clear in its registration decision that even though it

‘considers that none of the parts of the initiative manifestly falls outside the framework of the

Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of

implementing the Treaties, that conclusion does not affect the assessment of whether the concrete

substantive conditions required for the Commission to act, including compliance with the

principles of proportionality and subsidiarity and compatibility with fundamental rights, would be

met in this case.’

The organisers collected the required ‘statements of support’ (signatures) between 31 July 2024

and 31 July 2025. On 26 January 2026, after Member State authorities had verified the statements

of support, the organisers submitted the initiative to the Commission. On the same date, the

Commission published a notice confirming the validity of the initiative in the ECI register.

The organisers explained the initiative’s objectives at a meeting with the Commission on

23 February 2026 and at a public hearing organised by the European Parliament on 16 April 2026.

Furthermore, the Parliament held a plenary debate on the initiative on 21 May 2026. In addition,

the European Economic and Social Committee organised a hearing on 19 May 2026. On these

occasions, the organisers stressed that their initiative only targeted games yet to be developed, not

those already commercially available.

This Communication sets out the Commission’s legal and political conclusions on the initiative,

the action it intends to take, its reasons for doing so and the envisaged timeline, in line with

Article 15(2) of the ECI Regulation.

2. CONTEXT

2.1 Policy context

The Commission is committed to ensuring a high level of consumer protection and to promoting

fair, transparent and trustworthy practices in digital markets, in line with the Treaties and EU

legislation. In this context, it seeks to ensure that consumers are adequately informed about the

characteristics and conditions of use of digital products and that they can effectively exercise their

rights under EU law. At the same time, the Commission is also committed to ensuring a high level

of protection of intellectual property in line with EU law, to foster investment in creativity and

innovation.

The 2030 Consumer Agenda4, adopted by the Commission on 19 November 2025, sets out the

strategic framework for EU consumer policy for 2025-2030. It is based on the premise that

consumer trust is essential for markets to function properly and that a high level of consumer

protection also contributes to competitiveness and economic performance. The Agenda includes a

priority of ensuring digital fairness and online consumer protection.

3 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1824 of 19 June 2024 on the request for registration, pursuant to Regulation (EU)

2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of the European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop Destroying

Videogames’, OJ L, 2024/1824, 28.6.2024, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024D1824. 4 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the regions, 2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan for consumers in the single market ‘A new impulse for

consumer protection, competitiveness and sustainable growth’, COM(2025) 848 final.

3

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in its recommendation on

consumer protection in e-commerce, highlighted that the growing reliance of digital content on

online infrastructures and services controlled by traders may raise challenges for consumers, in

particular as regards transparency, the understanding of contractual conditions and the effective

exercise of consumer rights in digital environments5.

UNESCO has underlined the growing importance of digital technologies in reshaping the creation,

distribution and accessibility of cultural content, including in sectors such as gaming6. In this

context, video games are increasingly considered as a form of cultural expression and as part of the

wider creative economy, contributing to innovation, skills development and the transmission of

cultural content7.

The Stop Killing Games campaign – of which the ECI ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’ is part – also

prompted a reply from the government of the United Kingdom in 2025. In its answer to a petition,

the UK government stated that ‘there are no plans to amend UK consumer law on disabling video

games’, adding that “those selling games must comply with existing requirements in consumer law

and we will continue to monitor this issue’8.

Recent legislative initiatives in the United States also illustrate the increasing attention given to

issues related to digital and service-based business models. A law adopted in 2024 aims to improve

transparency in digital markets by requiring traders to clearly inform consumers when digital

purchases confer only a license to access content, rather than ownership rights9.

2.2 EU legal framework

• General EU law principles

In accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the use of Union

competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Article 16 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantees the freedom to conduct a business.

Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that ‘in

order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the

5 OECD, OECD Recommendation on Consumer Protection in E-commerce (updated), and related OECD work on digital

consumer protection, 2016, https://www.oecd.org/sti/consumer/ECommerce-Recommendation-2016.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/05/oecd-recommendation-of-the-council-on-consumer-

protection-in-e-commerce_g1g66e4e/9789264255258-en.pdf 6 UNESCO, Re|shaping policies for creativity: addressing culture as a global public good, 2022 (and subsequent updates),

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380479. 7 In this sense see also European Commission: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

ECORYS and KEA, Understanding the value of a European video games society – Final report, Publications Office of the

European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/332575 8 Petition to the UK Parliament and UK Government: Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already

sold 9 California Assembly Bill No 2426 (2024), An act to add Section 17500.6 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to

consumer protection, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426. Furthermore, a new bill called “Protect

our games act” AB1921 is being considered by the California legislature addressing the discontinuation of video games Bill Text -

AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use.

4

Union shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well

as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to

safeguard their interests’.

In accordance with Article 12 TFEU, consumer protection requirements must be taken into account

in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities. Article 38 of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) also requires Union policies to ensure

a high level of consumer protection.

• Consumer protection rules

EU consumer protection legislation does not set specific requirements for the duration of the supply

of digital content and services, including online video games, nor does it require traders to ensure

that consumers can continue using digital content and services once their commercial supply has

ended.

EU consumer law instruments aim at empowering consumers through transparency obligations.

They also protect consumers against unfair commercial practices and contract terms and provide

consumers with remedies when digital content and services are not in conformity with the contract

concluded between the consumer and the provider.

Specifically, Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights10 (the Consumer Rights Directive – ‘the

CRD’) requires traders, before concluding a contract, to provide consumers with clear and

comprehensible information about the main characteristics and functionality of digital content and

services and about the duration of the contract and the conditions for terminating the contract.

Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices 11 (the Unfair Commercial Practices

Directive – ‘the UCPD’) requires traders not to omit material information that the average

consumer needs to take informed transactional decisions both before and during the use of a product

such as a video game. The UCPD also prohibits misleading practices that may lead average

consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not take otherwise.

Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts12 prohibits terms which, contrary to

the requirement of good faith, cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations,

to the detriment of the consumer.

Directive (EU) 2019/770 on digital content and digital services13 (the Digital Content Directive –

‘the DCD’) establishes rules on the conformity of digital content and digital services and provides

for consumer remedies.

10 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending

Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council

Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64. 11 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer

commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and

2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of

the Council, OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. 12 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29. 13 Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning

contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, p. 1.

5

The application of these EU consumer law instruments to the discontinuation of video games by

their providers is explained in Section 3.2.

Additionally, other EU law may also be relevant in this area, such as EU competition law. Article

102 TFEU prohibits companies from abusing a dominant position in the EU internal market or in

a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. In case a video game

publisher or distributor that holds a dominant position in the relevant market for a gaming service

discontinues that service without an objective justification, remedies may be sought before

competition authorities and national courts, under Article 102 TFEU and/or national competition

laws.

• Intellectual property rules

Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU provides that everyone has the right to

own, use, dispose of and bequeath their lawfully acquired possessions and guarantees the

protection of intellectual property, including copyright.

As recalled by the Court of Justice of the European Union14, video games constitute complex matter

comprising not only a computer program protected under Directive 2009/24/EC15 but also graphic

and sound elements having unique creative value and protected under Directive 2001/29/EC16.

Under EU copyright law, rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations. In practice,

rights holders may allow third parties to exercise certain rights in respect of their protected works

by way of licence, unless an exception or limitation applies or the principle of exhaustion applies.17

The scope for applying exceptions and limitations is to be interpreted narrowly and only in special

cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably

prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holders.

In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect

different visual and technological aspects of a video game. Owners of other intellectual property

rights are also exclusively entitled to authorise the use of their intellectual property in physical or

digital services and products. In the EU, national trademarks coexist with the European Union

trademark (EUTM) system.18 Both national trademarks and EUTMs provide protection against

unauthorised use in digital products such as video games.

In a similar manner to trademarks, national design rights coexist with EU designs in the single

14 See e.g. Case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:25, paragraph 23. 15 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer

programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16). 16 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of

copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10). 17 The principle of exhaustion concerns the limits on a copyright owner’s control over a work after it has been lawfully placed on

the market. In essence, once the copyright holder has authorised the sale or other distribution of a particular copy of the work,

they can no longer rely on their exclusive distribution right to control the subsequent resale or further distribution of that specific

copy. The principle of exhaustion may apply in certain circumstances to the distribution in electronic or digital form of a

computer program, See C-128/11 Usedsoft v Oracle. 18 Directive 2015/2436 harmonises national trademark laws across EU Member States. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 codifies and

governs the EUTM system, which is managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office, ensuring uniform protection

for trademarks across the single market. Intellectual property rights holders can choose their intellectual property strategy

depending on their business model and other factors.

6

market.19

Directive (EU) 2016/94320 harmonises laws across the EU Member States to protect against the

unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets. It sets a uniform definition for trade

secrets and provides civil redress mechanisms to protect company know-how.

Directive 2004/48/EC 21 provides a harmonised, minimum set of fair and proportionate civil

measures, procedures and remedies to enforce intellectual property rights which is applicable to all

national and European intellectual property titles in the single market.

2.3 The issue at stake

The video games industry is the world’s leading cultural and creative sector in economic terms. It

enjoyed rapid growth in the 2010s and during the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching around

EUR 170 billion in global revenues in 2023, with the EU market representing more than

EUR 22 billion22 . Over time, video game technologies have contributed to broader economic

sectors (e.g. training, defence and health), and games themselves have become testbeds for

technological innovation (e.g. extended reality technology).

While it is experiencing an investment and employment crisis, the European video game industry

remains known for the distinctive art styles and storytelling of its games and its dynamic

independent scene. Through dedicated research on video games23, financial support for early-stage

development24, investment vehicles25 and active industry monitoring, the European Commission

has taken steps to support the competitiveness of the industry in Europe, which comprises

approximately 100 000 employees and around 5 500 studios and publishers.

Beyond economic indicators, video gaming has established itself as a leading leisure and cultural

activity in the European Union and worldwide. Three in four Europeans play video games26. An

increasing number of video games are now adapted into transmedia formats (e.g. TV series and

films) and they have a growing presence in popular culture. Finally, with the growing success of

multiplayer games, including games functioning on live-service models27 , video games have

increasingly become spaces for social interaction and bonding, fostering active player

communities.

It is against this background that the European Citizens’ Initiative has resonated with players.

Video games from the late 1990s and early 2000s functioned primarily in closed environments

whether single-player ones or multiplayer ones (e.g. couch multiplayer or local area networks

19 Directive (EU) 2024/2823 harmonises national design protection laws across the EU Member States, while Regulation (EU)

2024/2822 provides for the system of EU designs. 20 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-

how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure(OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1). 21 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual

property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45. 22 The 2025 European Media Industry Outlook report, European Commission, September 2025 23 Cluster 2: Culture, Creativity and Inclusive society - Research and innovation,https://research-and-

innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/cluster-2-culture-

creativity-and-inclusive-society_en 24 Through the Creative Europe funding programme. 25 Such as MediaInvest, a financial tool drawing from the Creative Europe as well as InvestEU programmes, https://digital-

strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/mediainvest 26 The 2025 European Media Industry Outlook report, European Commission, September 2025. 27 Live-service is a business model and development practice which consists in providing continuous updates and new content to a

game long after its initial release.

7

(LAN) or on self-hosted servers), making the gaming experience dependent on players’ own

hardware power and connection latency. By then, video games were already licensed, not sold, to

consumers.

In contrast, modern video games (whether single-player or multiplayer) increasingly rely on

company-run servers which – when severed – can result in a loss of access to parts or all of the

game. An increasing share of the infrastructure underpinning gameplay has moved from the client

side to the server side. While some games, in particular single-player ones and those with less

complex features, include always-online requirements for the sole purpose of authentication and

protection of copyright and intellectual property via digital rights management (DRM) software,

many popular modern games rely on online connections to allow a larger number of players to play

together, run specific social or developer-led events, or provide continuous updates to the game.

Online connections can also fix bugs through patches or server-side updates, and they can update

software and middleware to address vulnerabilities or updates to operating systems28. They offer

improved features central to competitive multiplayer games (e.g. matchmaking and leaderboards).

They also reflect an evolution of the sector, including the integration of third-party middleware and

external services (e.g. telemetry, anti-cheat systems, social features and cloud saves), which are

often hosted or supported via online infrastructure. Server infrastructure has also become key to

monetising games: in the live-service business model, regular content updates (e.g. events and daily

challenges) keep players engaged, while targeted advertising strategies also contribute to revenues.

As stated by the ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’ initiative, publishers29 can decide to shut down

servers. This step often results from a publisher’s cost-benefit analysis30, for example when the

game is deemed insufficiently profitable and the costs of maintaining licensing dependencies (e.g.

middleware or assets such as copyrighted or trademarked content) or servers for multiplayer games

are considered too high, or when development teams have to be reassigned to other projects.

Depending on the type of game and the extent to which it is dependent on the server, the

discontinuation of publisher support can make the game partially or entirely unusable, leading

consumers to lose access to a game they acquired via an upfront payment or in which they spent

time and money (e.g. for in-game items). It can also be due to concerns that their intellectual

property could be compromised or degraded if hosted on private servers with weaker moderation

and security controls.

The ‘Stop Killing Games’ campaign has documented this phenomenon and identified hundreds of

shutdowns in recent years. Evidence suggests that few publishers take steps to keep games playable

(e.g. converting games to an offline standalone version, allowing players to run self-hosted servers

or connect via peer-to-peer (P2P) connections, or releasing the source code and assets). It is more

often communities that keep games playable by reverse-engineering them or building fan-run

private servers. Data shows that games from smaller studios tend to remain playable, whereas live-

service games and many mobile games are more frequently affected by shutdowns.31

28 This applies particularly to mobile games. 29 While the ECI refers to ‘publishers’ only, it must be noted that developers self-publishing their games can also engage in the

practice of shutting down games. 30 Including in the case of game franchises. 31 Dead game list - Stop Killing Games Wiki. https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list

8

2.4. Stakeholder views

To better assess the technical, economic and legal implications of the issues raised by the initiative,

the Commission consulted representatives of the video game industry, consumer organisations,

consumer authorities and other stakeholders.

Industry representatives (Video Games Europe and the European Games Developer Federation)

expressed strong reservations regarding the introduction of a general legal obligation to ensure that

video games remain playable following the discontinuation of associated services. They argued

that such an obligation would significantly affect existing development and business models (e.g.

selling licences of video games). It could also lead to cybersecurity and safety issues for the players,

as game environments could deteriorate once the companies stop supporting them. In their view,

extensive technical re-engineering of games, including the removal of server dependencies, anti-

cheat systems and monetisation structures, could prove necessary. They also raised concerns

regarding intellectual property, as games may be based on third-party time-limited licences.

The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and its French member Que Choisir Ensemble

(previously UFC-Que Choisir) underlined the growing number of complaints linked to the

discontinuation of video games. They took the view that consumers primarily seek to retain access

to games they have purchased rather than to receive financial compensation for games that are

stopped and for which they have paid in advance. Consumer representatives also stressed that

certain games, notably single-player games, require an internet connection and the game provider’s

involvement only for the sake of player authentication. These games could therefore easily remain

functional as they do not require any ongoing support from the publisher.

National consumer authorities in the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network broadly

underlined the importance of ensuring transparency regarding the expected lifespan of video games

and the conditions for discontinuing them, including as regards the consequences for consumers if

the service is terminated. Where this information is relevant to the consumer’s purchasing decision,

the existing legal framework requires that it should be provided in a clear manner before concluding

the contract. The authorities also supported the need for a coordinated approach at EU level to

address cases in which issues arise.

These views illustrate the complexity of the issues raised by the initiative and the diverging

positions of the stakeholders.

3. RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE

3.1. Intellectual Property Law provides protection for videogame rightsholders and wide

freedom for choosing the distribution conditions

3.1.1. EU copyright law

EU copyright law affords creators a high level of protection of their intellectual creations by

granting them exclusive rights to reproduce, communicate to the public and distribute their works.

The choice of whether and how to distribute or otherwise make available a protected work such as

a video game lies with the rights holders within the limits set by the legal framework. While

9

exceptions and limitations help to define the boundaries of those exclusive rights32, it is not for

copyright law to mandate a specific form or distribution method for protected works.

Rightsholders remain in principle free to determine whether and how their protected works may

be used, including by imposing temporal limits or other conditions on the uses authorised under

licences to third parties in accordance with Union copyright law.

3.1.2 Other intellectual property rights

Video games are complex digital products, where several intellectual property rights may overlap

and protect different aspects of the final product. Video games may incorporate elements protected

by trademarks, designs, trade secrets and third-party licensing agreements. Measures aimed at

ensuring that video games remain playable after online services are discontinued may, therefore,

raise issues concerning the scope and exercise of these rights.

Trademarks may also be relevant in the context of video games. They may be used to protect the

title of the game, logos, characters’ names or even catchphrases. Furthermore, video games may

also incorporate third-party trademarks under licensing agreements, for example in sports games,

racing games or other products involving branded content. Continued operation or modification of

a game may, therefore, give rise to questions regarding the authorised use of the trademark.

Continued use of protected elements in the context of preserving the playability of a game may

therefore require an assessment of the relevant intellectual property rights.

Furthermore, the operation of many online video games depends on server infrastructure,

authentication systems or anti-cheat technologies that are not transferred to consumers at the time

of purchase. These elements may be protected by trade secrets and contractual restrictions.

Depending on the end-of-life plan, obligations to disclose or transfer these elements could therefore

interfere with the protection of confidential business information and know-how.

Any regulatory measures intended to ensure that video games continue to function or are preserved

after online services are discontinued would therefore have to be balanced against the rights

of consumers and the rights of the holder of the relevant intellectual property rights and contractual

arrangements involved as well as with the legitimate interests of rights holders.

3.2. Consumer law provides safeguards for consumers

The EU consumer law framework does not specify for how long digital content or services must

be supplied, nor does it include requirements to hand over digital content or services to users in a

functional state once they are no longer provided commercially. Nevertheless, the existing legal

framework includes important rules protecting consumers as users of digital content and services,

including video games. These are notably the rules laid down in the CRD and the UCPD on

transparency towards consumers at the point of sale of digital content and services and the rules

laid down in the DCD on conformity with the contract and consumer remedies and in the UCTD

on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

3.2.1 Transparency obligations

32 In the specific case of computer programs protected under Directive 2009/24, lawful acquirers have certain user rights which

may not be overridden by contract.

10

The CRD requires traders to provide consumers with clear and comprehensible information before

concluding a contract for digital content or services. That includes information about the duration

of the contract. If the contract is of indeterminate duration or is to be extended automatically,

traders must provide information also about the conditions for terminating the contract.33 That

includes information on the conditions under which the consumer and/or the trader may terminate

the contract, including any applicable notice periods for contract termination.

Moreover, traders are obliged to inform consumers about the ability of the digital content or digital

service to perform its functions. 34 Information about the contract duration, conditions for

terminating the contract and limitations on functionality are relevant when consumers are assessing

the value and usability of the digital content or service.

Providers of digital content or services are also subject to the UCPD, which requires them not to

omit information that consumers need to take informed transactional decisions.35 These UCPD

requirements also apply during the term of the contract. For example, once a provider has decided

to discontinue a video game, the UCPD requires them to inform consumers accordingly, as this

information could affect their transactional decisions, for example, regarding in-game purchases.

3.2.2 Fair contractual terms

Game providers’ general contract terms stipulating their right to discontinue games may also raise

concerns under the UCTD, subject to a case-by-case assessment. This could arise, for example, in

cases where the terms allow the provider with a wide possibility to terminate the service without a

sufficiently clear and transparent justification or without a reasonable notice period. Such terms

may create a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the

consumer. Contract terms creating such a significant imbalance are not binding on the consumer.

3.2.3 Conformity with the contract

The DCD sets the requirements for the conformity of digital content and services (such as video

games) with the contract, provides the consumer with remedies in the event of a lack of conformity,

and regulates modification of the digital content or digital service.

The DCD states that digital content and services must be of the description, quantity and quality,

and possess the functionality, compatibility, interoperability and other features, as required by the

contract.36 Furthermore, the digital content or service must be fit for the purposes for which digital

content or service of the same type would normally be used. It must also possess the qualities and

performance features which are normal for such content or service and which the consumer may

reasonably expect.37 These performance features also include the ‘accessibility’ and ‘continuity’

of the digital content or service.

In assessing the conformity of any discontinuation of a digital content or service, both types of

criteria need to be considered. Accordingly, a discontinuation of the digital content or service can

constitute a lack of conformity with the contract when the trader terminates the supply of the digital

content or service sooner than the consumer may reasonably expect. The assessment of what the

33 E.g. Article 6(1)(o) for distance contracts, such as online contracts. 34 Article 6(1)(r) CRD, Article 2(20) CRD and Article 2(11) DCD. 35 Article 7 UCPD. 36 Article 7 DCD. 37 Article 8 DCD.

11

consumer could reasonably expect in terms of the duration of supply is individual for each digital

content or service.

Specific contractual stipulations about the duration of supply of the digital content or service of

which the consumer was duly informed and should reasonably have been aware before concluding

the contract also determine what the consumer could reasonably expect under the objective

conformity requirements regarding accessibility and continuity. Generally, contractual limitations

affecting the functionality of digital content or services may amount to a lack of conformity where

they concern characteristics that consumers may reasonably expect, unless the consumer was

specifically informed of such a deviation and expressly accepted it before the conclusion of the

contract.38

In cases where the discontinuation of the digital content or service by the provider amounts to a

lack of conformity, the consumers should inform the provider about the termination of the contract

and request a refund. Consumers are entitled to receive a proportionate refund of the price paid in

advance for the video game under certain conditions.39 The right to receive a refund can apply both

to contracts of indeterminate duration and to contracts of fixed duration.

• When the contract is of a fixed duration, the trader must reimburse the consumer for the

proportionate part of the price paid by the consumer in advance for any period of the contract

that would have remained had the contract not been terminated. For example, in case of a

contract of five years, for which the consumer makes an advance payment, and the provider

discontinues the supply after four years, the consumer is entitled to a proportionate refund of

the amount paid in advance for the fifth year of the contract.

• Where the contract is of indeterminate duration, the size of the refund due must be assessed

individually on the basis of the contract duration that the consumer could reasonably have

expected under the objective criteria of continuity and accessibility. The assessment of any

refund due to the consumer would depend on factors such as the nature of the digital content

or service, the way it was marketed, accessibility and continuity which are normal for digital

content or service of the same type, and the period during which the digital content or service

remained available.

Moreover, the refund obligation applies not only to the price paid under the contract for the main

digital content or service, but also to payments under any ancillary contract related to the main

digital content or service, i.e. in-game purchases that are terminated along with the main contract.

In any event, the consumer should be reimbursed any amounts converted into any in-game

currencies that the provider may have introduced and that have not yet been disbursed for

purchasing virtual items. Since the purpose of buying in-game currencies is to use them for

purchasing virtual items, the consumer’s reasonable expectations would not be met when the

discontinuation of the main digital content or service makes it impossible for the consumer to use

the in-game currencies for purchasing virtual items40.

38 Recital 53 DCD. 39 Articles 14, 15 and 16 DCD. 40 In this context, it is useful to note that in the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network’s Key Principles on In-game

Virtual Currencies (available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8af13e88-6540-436c-b137-

9853e7fe866a_en?filename=Key%20principles%20on%20in-game%20virtual%20currencies.pdf) the CPC authorities stated that

12

The DCD applies only since 1 January 2022. So far, there are no rulings from the Court of Justice

of the European Union (CJEU) providing legally binding interpretation of its application41. The

Commission is currently reviewing the application of the DCD and plans to present its report by

the end of 2026, covering also its application to the discontinuation of digital content and services.

3.3 Keeping future video games playable after the end of their commercial exploitation might

entail costs and risks

As explained under section 3.1, requiring publishers to leave games in a functional state after

commercial exploitation could affect intellectual property rights. It could also impose costs (e.g.

engineering time, testing, renewal of licences etc.) for video game providers. This shall be

appreciated in a context where 26% of European game developers were already laid off in the span

of 12 months in 2024-2025.42 Such a requirement could also expose publishers to reputational risks

once video games are out of their operational control.43

3.4 Way forward

In order to address the concerns raised by the initiative, the Commission intends to explore with

the industry the possibility of elaborating a self-regulatory code of conduct to promote better

standards for the sunsetting of games.44 Such a framework could address the issue at stake while

also accommodating the diversity of video games and development practices. The code could also

promote more transparent labelling indicating the possible discontinuation of the game on

storefronts, and it could offer avenues for more partnerships between publishers and cultural

heritage institutions to preserve video games. In this regard, the Commission considers that it is

opportune to involve in this process consumer representatives and other services delivering access

to games (e.g. distributors, hardware manufacturers). In addition, the Commission will examine

the discontinuation of digital content and services in its forthcoming report on the application of

the DCD. The Commission will also work with consumer authorities and organisations to

strengthen awareness about the applicable consumer rights.

4. CONCLUSION

The Commission has carefully examined the request by the ECI in light of the relevant EU law.

The Commission considers that a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for a legal

act establishing an obligation for publishers that sell or license video games to consumers in the

European Union to keep them in a playable state, as requested by the ECI, would not be

proportionate.

While the Commission is fully committed to ensuring a high level of consumer protection in the

EU, the traders’ intellectual property rights must also be respected. These rights would risk being

adversely affected by a legal obligation to keep video games in a playable state after their

commercial exploitation. Under copyright law, rightsholders are entitled to establish the conditions

for the licensed use of their videogames, including the conditions for the termination of the licence.

consumers should not be deprived of their right of withdrawal in relation to unused purchasable in-game virtual currencies. 41 This document reflects the views of the Commission and is without prejudice to the interpretation of Union law by the Court of

Justice of the European Union. 42 Big Games Industry Employment Survey 2025, InGame Job & Values Value. 43 E.g. poor community moderation or cybersecurity risks on private servers could lead to risks of IP degradation. 44 Such as continued access to core gameplay features.

13

An obligation to keep games in a functional state may also interfere with the protection of

confidential business information and know-how, as well as with the business models of video

game providers which in principle, just like traders in the offline world, have the right to

discontinue their services. Keeping video games playable can also generate costs for publishers. In

addition, increased cybersecurity and safety risks may arise for players once publishers cease

supporting those games, (which in turn can also create or increase reputational risks

for publishers). Furthermore, the existing EU consumer law framework already provides important

safeguards protecting the consumer’s economic interests. These instruments lay down rules on

transparency, conformity and remedies in relation to digital content and services. Notably, they

require the providers of digital content and services to inform the consumers about the duration

and the conditions for terminating the contract. They also ensure that consumers can get their

money back if the discontinuation of the video game is not in conformity with the contract based

on the consumer’s reasonable expectations. Hence, they preserve the balance between a high level

of consumer protection and the legitimate interests of the video game sector. Active exercise of the

rights to remedies by the affected consumers and their representatives and the enforcement of these

rules by the competent national consumer protection authorities and/or courts, can also incentivise

the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans and explore solutions for meeting

consumer expectations.

While a legislative initiative to establish an obligation for publishers that sell or license video

games to consumers in the European Union to keep them in a playable state, as requested by the

ECI, is not envisaged, the Commission intends to initiate stakeholder exchanges by the end of

2026 to explore the possibility of elaborating a self-regulatory/industry-led code of conduct to

improve the management of video games’ end-of-life and strengthen transparency to consumers.

In addition, the Commission plans to present its report on the application of Directive (EU)

2019/770 by the end of 2026, covering also its application to the discontinuation of digital content

and services. Furthermore, the Commission will continue to work with consumer authorities and

organisations to raise awareness about the applicable consumer rights, including consumer

remedies.