Introduced in response to certain digital media sellers (e.g., game publishers) revoking consumer access to purchases with little to no recourse, AB 2426 forces sellers of “digital goods,” such as movies, apps, games, books and music to clarify what a consumer is actually receiving in connection with their “purchase.” Often companies refer to the “purchase” or “sale” of digital goods, yet the associated terms of service make clear that the buyer only receives a revocable license to the such goods. In some cases, if a buyer violates the terms of service, the license is revoked and the user is denied further access to the digital goods. In other cases, a buyer may be denied access to digital goods it has “purchased” if the digital media platform shuts down.Continue Reading New California Law Targets Sellers of Digital Goods

On August 28, the CFPB issued a Consumer Advisory warning that it believes video game companies are targeting children for monetary gain. With 45.7 million U.S. children engaged in video gameplay, the agency is concerned about the financial risks that games and virtual worlds pose, especially to young consumers. This Advisory highlights a growing focus on the game industry’s practices, which allegedly mimic traditional banking systems but lack corresponding consumer protections. Continue Reading Regulators Ramp up Scrutiny of Games’ Business Models

Given the introduction of the ‘NO FAKES’ Act by a bi-partisan group of senators within days of U.S. Copyright Office’s release of its digital replicas report asserting an “urgent need” for more cohesive protections at the federal level, it’s clear that momentum is building for federal oversight in the realm of deepfake and digital replication technology. This legislative effort is intertwined with broader national and global discussions about AI’s impact on privacy, intellectual property, and personal identity, alongside existing gaps in enforceable protections.Continue Reading Closer to a Federal Right of Publicity – Senate Introduces NO FAKES Act

After almost 2 years of negotiations over a new interactive media agreement with video game industry giants such as Activision, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros. and Walt Disney Co., video game performers voted to strike as of Friday, July 26, 2024. The crux of the issue being negotiated surrounds artificial intelligence (“AI”) and performers’ fears that its unbridled use could provide game makers with a means to replace them by training AI to replicate an actor’s voice, or to create a digital replica of their likeness without consent and without fair compensation.[1]Continue Reading Game On: SAG-AFTRA’s Video Game Performer Members Strike Over AI Concerns

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published a report on Banking in Video Games and Virtual Worlds (“Report”) that warns of greater scrutiny of and enforcements against the financial services offered in games and virtual worlds that increasingly resemble traditional financial products and services offered by regulated banking and payment systems. The Report is applicable to all types of games and virtual worlds, but creators and publishers of blockchain games and metaverses, in particular, should take note of this report.Continue Reading CFPB Report Targets Games and Virtual Worlds – What Blockchain Game and Metaverse Companies Need to Know

In December 2023, China’s National Press and Publication Administration introduced draft regulations with potentially significant implications for the online gaming industry. The proposed regulations, aimed at curbing in-game spending, could substantially affect games that rely on high spenders for their revenue, particularly “free to play” games. This initiative is part of China’s broader strategy to regulate the country’s leading gaming industry, which rebounded to generate approximately $42 billion in 2023, following a decline in revenue in the previous year due to China’s previous regulatory crackdown which included a temporary suspension of new game approvals and restrictions on the amount of time children can spend on gaming.Continue Reading China Proposes New Regulations for Online Gaming

On April 3, 2023, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed a civil complaint against Activision Blizzard Inc. (“Activision”) alleging that the “competitive balance tax” constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,[1] and entered into a proposed consent decree (a binding settlement) that, if approved by a court, would bar the gaming company from imposing a “tax” against its esports leagues that exceed spending limits on player compensation.Continue Reading No More Games: Activision Settles with DOJ Over Esports Compensation

Roblox recently announced that it is working on generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that will help developers who build experiences on Roblox, to more easily create games and assets. The first two test tools create generative AI content from a text prompt and enable generative AI to complete computer code. This is just the tip of the iceberg on how generative AI will be used in games and a variety of other creative industries. Music, film, art, comic books, and literary works are some other uses. AI tools are powerful and their use will no doubt be far reaching. In the near term, so too will the associated legal issues. Some of the legal issues include:Continue Reading How Generative AI Generates Legal Issues in the Games Industry

The rising prevalence of crypto and virtual currencies has invited the scrutiny of several regulatory bodies who continue to grapple with the unique challenges posed by blockchain technology, FinCEN being one prime example. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is an arm of the United States Department of Treasury that seeks to impede financial crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing, and was the first financial regulator in the U.S. to address virtual currency.Continue Reading Blockchain Game Developers and FinCEN: When are State Money Transmission Laws Applicable?

When a patent owner loses at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), can it hire new counsel and try again in district court? That question will be answered in Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al, No. 3-18-cv-01942 (N.D. Cal.), where plaintiff Gamevice is asserting three patents against Nintendo despite losing on those same patents in two prior ITC proceedings.Continue Reading Too Many Bites at the Apple?