Video Games: Consumer Law

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate, everyone who signed the petition raising this important issue, and all the contributors to the debate. It has been really interesting and thought provoking to hear the different perspectives and experiences. Some of the figures shared during the debate really brought to life the importance of the sector. It contributes £7.6 billion and tens of thousands of jobs to the economy, and, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, millions of gamers up and down the country enjoy gaming daily.

The Government recognise that gaming makes a huge economic contribution and that it is a cultural powerhouse, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke about the wider benefits of gaming. I am aware of the “Power of Play” report, which gives an insight into the social purpose of gaming. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) spoke about the vital importance of our creative landscape, and I will address his points on ownership and consumer rights throughout my speech, but I will answer his questions with a simple yes—it is important that we have effective advice and information. I am delighted to be a champion for the creative industries. I am indeed standing in for the Minister of State. This is not my policy area, but it is an area shared between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business and Trade.

At DCMS, we are very pleased to be championing video games across Government. The Government take their role in supporting video games, both as an industry and as an art form, very seriously. We are all aware of the economic power and potential for growth in the sector. That was highlighted in the creative industries sector plan and is why we have committed £30 million investment through our games growth package. Gaming’s place in culture is equally important, and that has really featured in the debate. For more than 40 years, video games have been entertaining audiences of all ages, and today, the vast majority of young people will grow up playing video games and making memories that they will carry with them throughout their lives. Video games, much like films and music, have become cultural touchstones.

With that in mind, the Government recognise the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate. The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world. Indeed, this is a global conversation. The passion behind the campaign demonstrates that the core underlying principle is a valid one: gamers should have confidence in the right to access the games that they have paid to play.

At the same time, the Government also recognise the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades. Games are more complex than ever before to develop and maintain, with the largest exceeding the budget of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. That can make it extremely challenging to implement plans for video games after formal support for them has ended and risks creating harmful unintended consequences for gamers, as well as for video game companies.

A number of Members have made points about ownership. It is important to note that games have always been licensed to consumers rather than sold outright. In the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms. Today, that happens when we click “accept” when buying a game on a digital storefront. Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice.

However, the video game industry has changed a lot over recent decades in ways that directly impact the way that these licences are sold under law. First, video game development today is more complex, and it is done at a much greater scale than 40 years ago. Secondly, the format of video games has shifted from physical to digital. As a result, the approach to protecting intellectual property has changed, including the “always online” functionality—the most relevant to this debate—which requires games to maintain a constant connection to an online server. For gamers used to dusting off their Nintendo 64 to play “Mario Kart” whenever they like—or in my case, “Crash Bandicoot” on the PlayStation—without the need for an internet connection, that can be frustrating, but it is a legitimate practice that businesses are entitled to adopt, so it is essential that consumers understand what they are paying for. Existing legislation is clear that consumers are entitled to information that enables them to make informed purchasing decisions confidently.

Under existing UK legislation, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that digital content must be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and described by the seller. It also requires that the terms and conditions applied by a trader to a product that they sell must not be unfair, and must be prominent and transparent. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 requires information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibits commercial practices that, through false or misleading information, cause the average consumer to make a different choice.

Points and questions about this issue were made by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). Points were made about consumer law and ownership. UK law is very clear: it requires information to consumers to be clear and correct. The Government are clear that the law works, but companies might need to communicate better. In response to a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, I should say that it is particularly important in cases where projects fail or games have to be pulled shortly after launch that the information provided to consumers is clear and timely.

Furthermore, I understand that campaigners argue that rather than just providing clear information, games should be able to be enjoyed offline after developer support has ended, either through an update or a patch, or by handing over service to the gaming community to enable continued online play—in other words, mandating the inclusion of end-of-life plans for always online video games. The Government are sympathetic to the concerns raised, but we also recognise the challenges of delivering such aims from the perspective of the video game industry.

First, such a change would have negative technical impacts on video game development. It is true that there are some games for which it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release. However, for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience, this would not be possible without major redevelopment. Requiring an end-of-life plan for all games would fundamentally change how games are developed and distributed. Although that may well be the desired outcome for some campaigners, it is not right to say that the solutions would be simple or inexpensive, particularly for smaller studios. If they proved to be too risky or burdensome, they could discourage the innovation that is the beating heart of this art form.

Secondly, the approach carries commercial and legal risks. If an end-of-life plan involves handing online servers over to consumers, it is not clear who would be responsible for regulatory compliance or for payments to third parties that provide core services. It could also result in reputational harm for video game businesses that no longer officially support their games if illegal or harmful activity took place. The campaign is clear in its statement that it would not ask studios to pay to support games indefinitely. However, it is hard to see solutions to these issues that do not involve significant time, personnel and monetary investment.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of gamers, there are the safety and security impacts to consider. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, video game companies are responsible for controlling exposure to harmful content in their games. Removing official moderation from servers or enabling community-hosted servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed to such content. Security threats could also be more likely if player data is no longer protected on official servers. Although the Government are, of course, supportive of businesses that are able to implement end-of-life plans voluntarily, we do not think that a blanket requirement is proportionate or in the interests of businesses or consumers. Our role is to ensure that those selling and purchasing games are clear about their obligations and protections under UK consumer law.

I will touch briefly on the subject of video game preservation, which is an important issue for the gaming community, and one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk rightly spoke about. The Government recognise the cultural value of games and actively support initiatives that promote and support that, whether through cultural institutions such as the National Videogame Museum and London’s Science Museum, digital distribution platforms, or individual video game companies donating their games and hardware to preservation organisations.

We recognise that preserving games can be uniquely complex, in particular when they rely on specific hardware or software to function as intended. We welcome ongoing discussions between the industry, national museums, libraries and archives about developing standards for game preservation. We encourage video game developers and publishers to continue considering preservation efforts when developing, releasing and supporting their games.

In the Government response to the petition, we pledged to monitor the issue and to consider the relevant work of the Competition and Markets Authority on consumer rights and consumer detriment. We do not think that mandating end-of-life plans is proportionate or enforceable, but we recognise the concerns of gamers about whether information on what they are purchasing is always sufficiently clear. With that in mind, DCMS, as the lead Department for video game policy, and DBT, as the lead Department for consumer protection, have engaged the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The institute maintains the Business Companion guide to businesses on complying with consumer law, including in relation to digital content. Following this debate, our two Departments will consider the case for asking the institute to develop guidance to help businesses to ensure that the information provided to video game consumers accurately reflects existing consumer protections.

It is vital to take into account the rights of consumers, while continuing to support the growth of our world-leading video game industry, with its benefits to the wider economy. I again thank all Members who spoke this afternoon, and everyone who signed and engaged with the petition to enable this debate to take place.