Consumer advocacy campaign Stop Killing Games has raised serious concerns about the European Union's proposed EU Kids Act, arguing that the legislation's broad language could have far-reaching consequences for online games, digital storefronts, and privately run servers. Ross Scott, the creator behind Stop Killing Games, described the proposal in stark terms in a recently released video, calling it potentially the most severe consumer-focused gaming proposal he has encountered.
The EU Kids Act was officially proposed on September 17, 2026. Its stated purpose is to improve protections for minors using potentially risky online services and artificial-intelligence systems, while preserving a unified digital market and a coherent framework for online child safety enforcement across EU member states.
That objective is easy to understand on its face. Children's safety online, especially around social platforms, AI systems, and digital services built around persistent engagement, is a major policy issue. But Scott's criticism is centered on whether the proposal reaches far beyond those goals, and whether its drafting could bring game services under onerous requirements that would affect adults, developers, publishers, preservation communities, and hobbyist server operators.
Embedded X/Twitter post
A proposal with games explicitly in scope
The EU Kids Act is not written solely around social networks or AI chat services. Its language expressly covers online social-networking services, video-sharing platforms, online games, AI companions, general conversational chatbots, and application stores. For the games industry, that explicit inclusion is the key reason the proposal is drawing attention.
For useful background on this topic, read Bradley Cooper Reportedly Set to Play Duke in Danny McBride's G.I. Joe Movie.
The document is 99 pages long and uses the dense, technical wording expected of an early legislative proposal. That means its practical effect is not necessarily obvious from any single passage. Important questions will depend on definitions, enforcement rules, exemptions, amendments, and eventual legal interpretation if the proposal progresses through the EU's legislative system.
Scott nevertheless argues that the potential stakes justify public scrutiny now rather than later. In his video, he characterized the proposed measure as a threat that could severely disrupt the games business, especially if the broadest reading of its requirements is adopted.
"As it stands, the EU Kids Act is the most draconian proposal I've ever seen regarding video games and consumers," Scott said.
His concern is not that lawmakers are attempting to address online harms in general. Scott said the focus on AI and risky digital services acts as a distraction from what he sees as the proposal's larger implications for gaming. In particular, he warned that it could require players to submit personally identifying information in order to access online games and could make private game servers illegal.
Why the definition of a video game matters
One of the most important issues identified by Stop Killing Games is the proposal's definition of a video game. In the definitions section, a video game is described as an "information society service." That phrase has a specific meaning within EU legal terminology, and its use may determine how much of the games market is swept into the law's obligations.
Under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation terminology, an information society service generally concerns a service provided for payment, at a distance, electronically, and at an individual user's request. Put more simply, it is language often associated with services and products acquired online.
Scott argued that this leaves major uncertainty. If a game purchased digitally is considered an information society service, the question becomes whether requirements designed around online safety and access controls could also apply to titles with few or no conventional online functions. A digitally bought single-player game, for instance, can still be delivered, authenticated, updated, and managed through an online store or launcher.
That ambiguity is especially significant as game distribution becomes increasingly digital. PC players commonly purchase games through storefronts such as Steam, while console platforms have steadily emphasized digital catalogs and subscription ecosystems. Sony is also ending disc production for all new PlayStation games in 2028, a shift that makes questions around digital access and platform obligations particularly relevant for future game ownership.
It is not yet established that the EU Kids Act would apply in the sweeping manner Scott fears. However, his argument is that unclear language can itself be a substantial problem when a law may govern an industry built around global online platforms, account systems, patches, cloud functions, multiplayer services, and user-created communities.
Age verification and privacy questions
Age assurance is one of the most contentious policy areas in modern online regulation. Lawmakers want platforms to prevent children from reaching harmful material or entering inappropriate spaces. At the same time, players and privacy advocates worry that robust verification systems can force users to hand over sensitive information, create new databases of identity data, or make anonymous and pseudonymous participation more difficult.
For games, that debate reaches beyond mature-rated releases. Online games often use accounts for matchmaking, social features, purchases, communication tools, anti-cheat systems, parental controls, and cross-platform progression. If age-verification duties are drafted too broadly, critics fear that game companies could choose highly restrictive compliance systems rather than face legal uncertainty.
Scott's warning that users could be required to provide personal identifying information to play an online game reflects that concern. The eventual details would matter enormously: what verification methods are permitted, whether there are alternatives that protect privacy, which services are obligated to perform checks, and how developers must treat players who decline or cannot complete the process.
Smaller studios could face a different problem from major publishers. Large platform holders may be able to build or purchase extensive compliance systems, but independent developers and community projects may lack the resources to navigate complex rules across multiple jurisdictions. A law intended to make online services safer could therefore have unequal effects depending on the size and financial capacity of the company operating a game.
Private servers are another central concern
Stop Killing Games has also focused on private servers, a topic closely connected to the campaign's wider work on game preservation and the continued usability of games after official support ends. Private servers can take many forms: fan-operated replacements for discontinued official infrastructure, community-hosted multiplayer spaces, modded servers, and servers run by people for a limited group of friends.
These services can keep older games playable after publishers move on, while also giving communities more control over rules, moderation, and gameplay formats. They can also introduce legitimate safety and legal challenges, particularly where minors are involved, which is why any regulation in this area could become complicated very quickly.
Scott's position is that the proposed law's safety-by-design framework could make private game servers unlawful. If that interpretation became reality, it could affect more than a handful of unofficial multiplayer projects. It could weaken preservation efforts for games whose original online functionality has been shut down and reduce the ability of players to maintain communities around aging titles.
The concern also illustrates a larger divide in game policy. Centralized services are easier to identify and regulate, but decentralized communities and independently hosted servers are often where a game continues to live after a publisher's commercial support has ended. Rules that assume every online game environment is operated by a major company could inadvertently target the people preserving older experiences.
The legislative process is only beginning
Crucially, the EU Kids Act is a proposal, not final law. It remains in an early part of the European Union's legislative process. Before it could become binding, it would face review, political debate, and likely amendments, followed by consideration through the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
That means the current text should not be treated as a settled description of future requirements for every game sold or played in Europe. Proposals can change substantially as legislators, regulators, industry groups, civil-society organizations, privacy specialists, child-safety experts, and the public identify practical problems or push for different approaches.
At the same time, early drafts can set the terms of a debate. That is why Scott is urging players to engage before the proposal becomes more advanced. His argument is that widespread public awareness may influence the discussion while lawmakers still have room to alter the text.
"The best thing you can do is spread the word on this," Scott said, urging gaming audiences to pay attention to the proposal and its possible effects.
The coming debate will likely turn on how the EU balances child protection with privacy, consumer access, digital ownership, and the continued operation of online game communities. Those goals do not have to be mutually exclusive, but the details of definitions and enforcement will be decisive.
For now, the EU Kids Act has opened a new front in the broader conversation about who controls access to digital games, what identification players may be asked to provide, and whether communities will retain the ability to operate the servers that keep games alive long after official support ends.
Community
Discussion
Start the conversation.
No comments have been posted yet.