A proposed European Union regulation aimed at improving minors’ safety online has drawn a sharp warning from consumer advocacy campaign Stop Killing Games. In a recent video, creator Ross Scott argued that the EU Kids Act could have sweeping and damaging consequences for video games, particularly around age verification, player identification and private servers.
The EU Kids Act was officially proposed on September 17, 2026. Its stated purpose is to protect minors from risky digital services and AI systems, while maintaining the EU digital single market and a consistent enforcement framework for online child protection. The proposal is broad: it addresses online social networks, video-sharing platforms, online games, AI companions, general conversational chatbots and software application stores.
Scott’s central argument is not that the objective of protecting children is inherently objectionable. Instead, he contends that the draft’s language could impose expansive obligations on games and game services, including services that are not usually thought of as social-media or AI products. He called it an exceptionally restrictive proposal for games and consumers and urged players to engage while it remains at the proposal stage.
Why the definition of a video game matters
The concern starts with terminology. The draft defines a video game as an information society service. That phrase is legal language rather than ordinary consumer language, and its meaning is important because it determines what may be within the regulation’s reach.
The EU GDPR defines an information society service as a service normally provided for payment, at a distance, by electronic means and at an individual recipient’s request. In everyday terms, that can describe a service bought or obtained online. Scott argues that applying this label to video games leaves major uncertainty: could the law cover digitally purchased games even when a particular game has no online or social component?
That is a question raised by the wording, not one resolved by the current proposal. A digital storefront is plainly part of the modern game-buying landscape, but the supplied material does not establish how lawmakers, regulators or courts would ultimately interpret the provision. What it does show is why a broad definition can create concern before specific technical duties are even considered.
For PC players, the issue is especially tangible because Steam is a digital storefront. For a look at the platform’s present retail role, see these Steam Autumn Sale deals. The question is not whether a sale itself would be regulated; it is whether the draft’s use of terms attached to online purchases could extend compliance responsibilities more widely than players expect.
“Safety by design” is the proposal’s key gaming section
The document runs to 99 pages, and its rules are written in legal language that will require close reading during the legislative process. For games, the focus identified by Stop Killing Games is Chapter III, titled Safety By Design.
Related coverage includes Stop Killing Games Raises Concerns Over the EU Kids Act's Potential Impact on Gaming.
“Safety by design” generally describes an approach in which safety protections are built into a product or service rather than added only after harm occurs. In the context of this proposal, that approach is directed at services used by minors. It is an important distinction because a rule requiring a service to be designed around safety can affect architecture, account systems and how users gain access—not merely the text of a warning screen or a published set of rules.
Scott says the draft could require people to provide personal identifying information to play an online game. That is among the campaign’s chief alarms, because age verification can involve collecting or processing information tied to a user’s identity. The source material does not provide final technical requirements, a selected verification method or a settled list of games that would be covered. It would therefore be premature to say every online game would necessarily demand the same information if the Act became law.
Still, the concern illustrates the practical stakes of a seemingly abstract rule. If a service must establish whether a player is a minor, developers and platform operators may need a way to verify age. The larger the number of games and services in scope, the more often players could encounter an age-check process. For consumers, the salient questions would be what data is requested, who processes it, and whether the requirement applies to a game, its store, its online mode or another part of the service chain. Those details are not settled in the material available here.
Private servers are another flashpoint
Scott also warns that the proposal could make all private game servers illegal. A private server, in ordinary gaming usage, is a server run independently of a game’s official operator, often for a defined community or a particular version of a game. They can be central to community-led multiplayer spaces, but their legal and operational status can vary considerably depending on the game and circumstances.
The advocacy group’s position is that the bill’s requirements could be incompatible with such servers. This is an interpretation and warning from Stop Killing Games, rather than a conclusion that the text has already been enacted or definitively interpreted. The EU Kids Act remains a proposal, so there is no final compliance regime in force under this draft.
That procedural point matters. Debate over a proposal is where definitions, exemptions, thresholds and enforcement mechanisms can be changed. The current language may be amended before the measure reaches votes in both the European Parliament and the EU Council. Scott’s call to publicize the issue is based on that timing: the campaign believes gamers should raise questions about scope and consequences before the text is finalized.
What is established, and what remains uncertain
There are two different layers to this story that are worth keeping separate.
- Established from the proposal: The EU Kids Act has been proposed; its stated objective is online protection of minors; it expressly includes online games among the services subject to safety-by-design requirements; and it defines video games through the term “information society service.”
- Stop Killing Games’ interpretation: The wording could lead to personal-identification requirements for online play, broadly affect digitally purchased games, and make private servers unlawful.
- Still unresolved: The ultimate wording, the exact services covered, any exemptions or implementation details, and the final obligations for developers, stores, server hosts and players.
This distinction does not make the concerns trivial. Broad definitions and unclear boundaries can be consequential, particularly in an industry where a “game” can encompass a locally played title, a downloadable product, an account-based service, a competitive online platform or a persistent community. But it also means claims about the final impact must be treated as contingent while the legislation is being reviewed and potentially rewritten.
Why players should watch the next stage
The debate is ultimately about balancing child protection with proportionality, privacy and access to games. The proposal’s stated mission is child safety online. Stop Killing Games’ objection is that a framework written broadly enough to include online games and digital services could produce requirements that affect adults, offline-focused purchases and independent multiplayer communities too.
For players, developers and community hosts, the next stages are more important than assuming a final outcome now. The document’s definitions, the meaning assigned to safety by design, and the treatment of age assurance will determine whether the campaign’s worst-case reading is avoided, narrowed or reinforced.
Scott’s position is clear: public awareness should arrive early, while lawmakers can still modify the proposal. The EU Kids Act has not passed, and it has not yet reached the European Parliament and EU Council voting stages. What happens during review and amendment will decide whether this becomes a narrowly targeted child-safety rule, a broader regulatory burden for games, or something in between.
