A proposed U.S. bill unveiled this month is aiming squarely at one of gaming’s most contested financial arrangements: the “licensed, not sold” clause buried in nearly every digital storefront’s terms of service. Rep. Ritchie Torres, the Democrat representing New York’s 15th Congressional District, announced the Power To The Players Act on October 15, 2026, and while the headline framing has focused on the political optics, the real story for the industry is what happens to the business model underneath. If digital purchases stop being revocable licenses and start being treated as owned property, the economics of live-service games, platform storefronts, and publisher balance sheets could look very different.
This piece is not a recap of the announcement itself (we covered the initial Power To The Players Act news here). It is a look at what the proposal would actually mean for the companies whose revenue depends on the current licensing structure, how it compares with a parallel fight already playing out in Europe, and why Wall Street and game publishers alike should be paying closer attention than the “gamers get rights” headlines suggest.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What the Power To The Players Act Actually Proposes
According to Torres’ announcement, the bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission to write rules establishing three protections for consumers who buy digital video games. First, a purchase would count as ownership rather than a revocable license. Second, games with online functionality would be required to ship a functional offline mode before their supporting servers are shut down. Third, the proposal would protect a buyer’s ability to transfer or resell a game they purchased.
Torres framed the core argument plainly: “Consumers must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer the games they buy,” he said in the announcement posted to his official House.gov page. In the same release, he put the problem in consumer terms: “When you pay for a game, you should own it.”
As of October 18, 2026, the bill had not yet been formally introduced in Congress. There is no bill number, no committee assignment, and no confirmed cosponsor list. That matters for how the industry should read this moment: it is a policy proposal and a political signal, not pending law with a compliance deadline. Still, the specificity of the ask (FTC rulemaking, an offline-mode mandate, resale protection) gives publishers, platform holders, and investors something concrete to model against, which is why this is already generating more industry chatter than a typical congressional press release.
The Licensing Model the Bill Is Aimed At
To understand why this proposal lands as a direct hit on gaming economics, it helps to look at what digital storefronts already say in their fine print. Every major platform frames a game purchase as a license rather than a transfer of ownership. Steam’s Subscriber Agreement states that content and services are licensed, not sold, and that the license grants no title or ownership interest in the content. PlayStation’s network terms describe content sold through the PlayStation Store in the same way: licensed, not sold, with Sony retaining the ability to terminate access to PlayStation Network services, including the Store, without notice. Microsoft’s Xbox terms describe a comparable arrangement, granting a license to access and use software rather than ownership of it. Nintendo’s account and eShop terms use near-identical language, stating that software is licensed, not sold, with Nintendo retaining all right, title, and interest in the product.
That “licensed, not sold” boilerplate is not an accident. It gives platform holders and publishers the legal room to discontinue servers, delist titles, and change terms without honoring a resale or perpetual-access obligation. It is also the exact mechanism the Power To The Players Act is written to override. If the FTC were empowered to write rules requiring continued playability and transferability, every one of those agreements would need to be rewritten, and the commercial assumptions baked into live-service game design would need rethinking alongside them.
Historical Context: Why This Fight Didn’t Start in Washington
The grievance behind the bill is not new. Players and preservationists have spent years documenting cases where always-online requirements rendered purchased games unplayable once a publisher pulled the plug, Ubisoft’s discontinuation of online support for the racing game The Crew in 2024 being among the most frequently cited examples, since the title’s always-online design meant the entire single-player game stopped functioning once servers went dark. That specific grievance, that a purchase can be erased entirely by a corporate decision made years later, is the connective tissue between the U.S. proposal and a much larger fight that has already played out in Brussels. It is also the same underlying fear that resurfaced recently when Character.ai filed for bankruptcy with roughly 163 million registered users: when a company controlling access to a digital product shuts down or restructures, the people who paid for or relied on that product are left with no guaranteed claim to continued access.
The European Citizens’ Initiative known as Stop Destroying Videogames (popularly called Stop Killing Games) collected 1,294,188 verified signatures, clearing the required threshold across 24 of the European Union’s 27 member states, with the count finalized on January 26, 2026, according to Wikipedia’s tracking of the initiative and independent reporting on the campaign. That volume of verified support forced a response: the European Commission adopted a formal communication on June 16, 2026, addressing the initiative’s demands.
The Commission’s answer, though, was not the law the campaign wanted. It declined to propose legislation mandating that publishers keep purchased games playable, opting instead to pursue stakeholder discussions aimed at a voluntary, industry-led code of conduct on game end-of-life practices, with those discussions expected to continue through the end of 2026. In other words, Europe’s most organized, highest-signature push for this exact right stalled at the voluntary-guidance stage rather than becoming binding law. That outcome is the most important data point available for judging how seriously to take the Power To The Players Act’s chances, and it is a story every outlet covering the U.S. bill needs to be citing.
Market Impact: Who Actually Has Exposure Here
If a version of this bill ever became binding U.S. regulation, the exposure would not be evenly distributed across the games industry. Publishers that lean hardest on live-service economics, games designed around persistent online worlds, seasonal content, and server-dependent matchmaking, would face the most direct compliance cost, since an offline-mode mandate requires engineering work that many live-service titles were never built to support. Publishers with large back catalogs of older, server-reliant titles would face a retroactive question: does a continued-play requirement apply only to new releases, or to games already sold under the current license model? The bill’s public description does not resolve that question, and neither Torres’ office nor any named publisher has addressed it on the record as of this writing.
Platform holders carry a different kind of exposure. Storefront terms of service are standardized legal documents used across millions of transactions; rewriting the ownership language in a Steam Subscriber Agreement or a PlayStation Network terms-of-service document is not a simple patch, it is a legal and commercial overhaul that touches refund policy, account termination rights, and resale infrastructure that currently does not exist at scale on any major first-party storefront. The stakes of that account-termination power are not hypothetical: Sony’s PS5 firmware 14.10 update already demonstrated how a platform holder can cut off PSN access for accounts it deems in violation of its terms, with no resale or transfer path available to affected users. None of the major platform holders have issued a public statement responding to the Power To The Players Act as of October 18, 2026, and no comment from the Entertainment Software Association, the games industry’s primary U.S. trade group, has been reported either. That silence is itself notable: a proposal this specific, aimed this directly at core storefront economics, would normally draw swift industry pushback if it were seen as an immediate threat. The absence of a response may reflect the bill’s pre-introduction status more than industry indifference.
Secondary markets stand to gain the most if the resale and transfer protections ever took effect. A functioning legal right to resell a digital game purchase would create an entirely new secondary marketplace for digital licenses, something today’s platforms are structurally designed to prevent. That would represent new competition for first-party storefronts’ full-price sales, giving Valve, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo a direct commercial incentive to resist the transfer provision even if they are less opposed to the offline-mode requirement. Storefronts already fight hard over take-rate and licensing terms for digital content, as seen in the ongoing dispute over revenue cuts between Unity Asset Store, Fab, and CGTrader, and a mandated digital resale market would introduce an entirely new front in that same kind of fee and control battle.
Competitive Comparison: How the Major Platforms Currently Handle Ownership
The table below lays out how each major digital storefront currently frames ownership in its terms of service, based on publicly available platform agreements and the ownership-rights analysis cited above. This is the status quo the Power To The Players Act would need to override.
| Platform | Ownership framing | Transfer/resale allowed | Offline mode guaranteed | Can terminate access |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steam (Valve) | Licensed, not sold | No consumer resale path | Title-dependent, not mandated | Yes, per Subscriber Agreement |
| PlayStation Store (Sony) | Licensed, not sold | No consumer resale path | Title-dependent, not mandated | Yes, without notice per PSN terms |
| Xbox (Microsoft) | License to access and use | No consumer resale path | Title-dependent, not mandated | Yes, per Services Agreement |
| Nintendo eShop | Licensed, not sold | No consumer resale path | Title-dependent, not mandated | Yes, per Nintendo Account terms |
| Power To The Players Act (proposed) | Ownership, not license | Protected transfer right | Mandated before server shutdown | Restricted by FTC rule |
The consistency across the four major storefronts is the point: every one of them uses functionally identical licensing language, which is exactly why a single federal rule could, in theory, touch the entire industry at once rather than targeting one company’s practices. That scale is hard to overstate: Steam alone set a new concurrent-user record above 43 million players this year, meaning any change to its Subscriber Agreement’s ownership language would touch one of the largest digital storefronts in any consumer category, not just gaming. That is also why the bill is being watched well beyond the political press that first covered the announcement, including coverage from PC Gamer, which quoted Torres calling current digital purchases “rentals disguised as sales.”
The Brussels Precedent, in Numbers
Because the Stop Destroying Videogames campaign is the closest real-world comparison available, it is worth laying its timeline out directly next to where the U.S. proposal currently stands.
| Milestone | Stop Destroying Videogames (EU) | Power To The Players Act (US) |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanism | European Citizens’ Initiative (petition-triggered) | Proposed federal legislation / FTC rulemaking |
| Verified public support | 1,294,188 signatures | Not applicable (legislative proposal, not a petition) |
| Threshold cleared | 24 of 27 EU member states | Not yet introduced in Congress |
| Formal response date | June 16, 2026 (European Commission communication) | Announced October 15, 2026; no formal response yet |
| Outcome so far | No binding law; voluntary industry code under discussion | Undetermined; pre-introduction stage |
The pattern in that comparison is hard to ignore. Even a petition that cleared a binding legal threshold in nearly every EU member state did not produce mandatory legislation, only a commitment to voluntary talks. A U.S. bill that has not yet been introduced, with no confirmed cosponsors and no committee assignment, is starting from a considerably weaker procedural position than the European campaign was in when it hit its own ceiling.
Why the FTC Angle Matters More Than the Headline
Routing enforcement through the Federal Trade Commission rather than creating a standalone statute is a deliberate structural choice, and it is the detail most worth tracking as this story develops. The FTC already regulates deceptive and unfair trade practices, and framing “licensed, not sold” language as potentially misleading marketing (selling something labeled as a purchase that functions as a revocable license) fits within territory the agency has explored before in other consumer-protection contexts. Directing the FTC to write implementing rules, rather than spelling out exact technical requirements in statutory text, also gives the proposal flexibility that a narrowly drafted law would not have. It additionally means the real fight, if the bill ever advances, would move from Congress to a regulatory rulemaking process, with publishers and platform holders able to file comments, lobby during the rule-drafting period, and litigate afterward. That is a much longer and more technical fight than a straightforward floor vote, and it is one the games industry has resources to contest extensively.
What Publishers and Platforms Are Not Saying
One of the more telling aspects of this story, as of October 18, is what has not happened yet. No major publisher, no platform holder, and no statement from the Entertainment Software Association has been publicly reported in response to the announcement. That silence can be read two ways. It could mean the industry sees a pre-introduction proposal with no bill number as too early-stage to merit a public reaction. Or it could mean publishers are quietly assessing exposure before deciding whether to engage publicly, privately, or not at all. Given how directly the proposal targets the licensing language every major storefront relies on, the second read seems at least as plausible as the first, and it is worth watching for the first on-record industry statement as a genuine signal of how seriously this is being taken internally.
The Consumer Argument, in Torres’ Own Words
Torres has been consistent in framing this as a basic fairness issue rather than a technical regulatory fix. “A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase. It is a rental disguised as a sale,” he told Ars Technica in coverage of the announcement. In a separate interview cited by Kotaku, he distilled the proposal to a single sentence: “I think there should be a simple rule: if you pay for it, you own it.” And in describing the bill’s intended effect, his office’s announcement stated that “the Power To The Players Act ensures consumers own what they buy and can keep playing long after a company moves on.”
That messaging is built for a general audience, not a regulatory filing, and it is a reasonable bet that the simplicity is intentional. A bill framed around “you should own what you pay for” is far easier to build public support around than one framed around FTC rulemaking authority or platform EULA architecture, even though the latter is where the actual fight would be decided.
Predictions: What Happens From Here
- Formal introduction is likely to take weeks to months rather than days, given there is currently no bill number, no committee referral, and no confirmed cosponsor list as of October 18, 2026.
- Expect the games industry’s first public response, if one comes, to be measured and procedural rather than combative, mirroring how the Entertainment Software Association and major publishers typically respond to pre-introduction proposals.
- If the bill advances to committee, the loudest lobbying will likely center on the transfer/resale provision rather than the offline-mode requirement, since a functioning resale right threatens full-price sales revenue more directly than a continued-play mandate does.
- The European Commission’s decision to pursue a voluntary industry code rather than binding law is a strong precedent suggesting any eventual U.S. outcome, if there is one, is more likely to land as negotiated guidance or a narrower FTC rule than as a sweeping ownership mandate.
- Watch for platform holders to quietly update terms-of-service language around offline functionality for new releases, regardless of the bill’s legislative fate, simply to get ahead of consumer-protection scrutiny that this kind of proposal tends to generate even when it stalls. Storefront fee structures are already under separate pressure, as shown by the gap documented between the Epic Games Store’s mobile fees and Apple’s App Store cut, and a resale mandate would add ownership rights to a list of commercial terms platform holders are already defending on multiple fronts.
Why This Story Is Bigger Than One Congressional Press Release
Coverage of the announcement itself has been extensive, with outlets including TechSpot, Inven Global, and Ground News all framing the story around Torres’ “if you pay for it, you own it” line within a day of the announcement. What has gotten less attention is the structural question underneath the headline: a federal rule built around FTC enforcement is a fundamentally different mechanism than the voluntary-code outcome Europe landed on, and the two are not guaranteed to converge. If the U.S. proposal eventually clears Congress in anything resembling its announced form, it would mark the first binding legal departure from the licensing model that has underpinned digital game sales since storefronts went digital-first. If it stalls the way the EU’s petition-driven effort did, the practical effect may end up being reputational pressure on publishers and platforms rather than enforceable law, at least in the near term.
Either outcome has implications for how publishers design live-service games going forward, how platform holders write their next round of terms-of-service updates, and how seriously investors should weight “regulatory risk” language the next time a games company files a risk disclosure. For an industry that has spent two decades building revenue models around the assumption that a purchase is not really a purchase, even a proposal that never becomes law can still shift how cautiously that assumption gets defended in public.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Power To The Players Act been introduced in Congress yet?
As of October 18, 2026, it had not. Reporting describes it as legislation Torres plans to introduce, with no confirmed bill number, committee assignment, or cosponsor list available yet.
Who is behind the bill?
Rep. Ritchie Torres, the Democrat representing New York’s 15th Congressional District, announced the proposal on October 15, 2026.
What would change for consumers if the bill became law?
Based on the announced provisions, digital game purchases would be treated as ownership rather than a revocable license, online games would need to offer an offline mode before shutting down supporting servers, and consumers would gain protection for transferring or reselling purchased games.
Which agency would enforce the proposed rules?
The Federal Trade Commission. The bill would direct the FTC to establish the implementing regulations rather than spelling out the technical requirements directly in the statute.
How does this compare to the EU’s Stop Killing Games campaign?
The EU’s Stop Destroying Videogames initiative gathered 1,294,188 verified signatures across 24 of 27 member states, forcing a European Commission response on June 16, 2026. The Commission declined to propose binding legislation, opting instead for voluntary industry discussions. That outcome is the closest real-world precedent for how a similar push might play out in the U.S.
Have Steam, PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo responded to the bill?
No public statement from any major platform holder or from the Entertainment Software Association had been reported as of October 18, 2026.
Would this bill apply to games people already own?
That is unconfirmed. The announced provisions do not specify whether a continued-play or offline-mode requirement would apply retroactively to already-purchased games or only to future releases.
Why does the transfer/resale provision matter more commercially than the ownership language?
A functioning digital resale right would create a secondary market for game licenses that does not meaningfully exist today, competing with first-party full-price sales. That gives platform holders a direct financial incentive to resist that specific provision even if they are more neutral on the offline-mode requirement.
