Sold as child protection, the European Commission’s new proposal could force ID checks on online games, criminalise community servers, and apply to games released decades ago.
The European Commission says its new EU KIDS Act will make the internet safer for children. Critics say it could quietly wreck online gaming in Europe.
The proposal was unveiled on September 17, 2026, after a draft leaked. It’s a 99-page regulation that would apply directly in all 27 member states.
The headline measures got a fairly warm reception: under-13s would be barred from social media, 13–14-year-olds would get supervised accounts capped at an hour a day, and features like infinite scroll, autoplay and streaks would be banned for minors. AI companions and chatbots would face new safety rules too.
This is the good bit, genuinely good for the brainrotted society we are creating. Read further, though, and the Act names online games alongside social networks, app stores and operating systems as services covered by its “safety by design” rules. That’s where the trouble starts.
“A bomb that could implode the whole video games industry”
Ross Scott, the YouTuber behind Accursed Farms and founder of the Stop Killing Games movement, has become the proposal’s loudest critic. He calls it “the most draconian proposal I’ve ever seen regarding video games and consumers,” and says the focus on AI and social media is a “mask to hide what else is in there.”
Under the Act, a video game counts as an “information society service.” Scott calls that definition “as clear as mud.” His reading of the text raises several alarms:
- ID to play online. Typing in your date of birth would no longer be enough. Players could have to verify their age before accessing online features.
- Private servers in legal limbo. If whoever runs a server counts as a game provider, fan-hosted Minecraft servers, community servers for old shooters like Unreal Tournament, and preservation projects could all have to comply or shut down.
- Every digital game could count. Stop Killing Games worries that any game bought from a digital storefront like Steam could be swept in, as could physical games that go online only to download updates.
- Operating systems in scope. Operating systems are explicitly covered, which raises questions about how free Linux distributions with no central account system could ever comply.
- No exemption for indies. The Act has no general carve-out for small studios. Scott estimates compliance could cost a small developer roughly $300,000–$500,000 in the first year, plus ongoing yearly costs after that.
Scott admits some of the wording is hard to interpret, and that the lawyers he consulted didn’t agree on every point. Still, the vagueness is the problem. A law this unclear, with fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover, gives developers every reason to geoblock the EU rather than take the risk.
Old games aren’t safe either
The Act doesn’t only look ahead. According to EUobserver, any game, new or old, would have to comply unless it’s strictly offline on physical media or made purely for education.
Games would default to child-oriented versions with an eight-hour nighttime lockout, a screenshot ban, and guardian supervision. Age verification would be needed to unlock full features like multiplayer tournaments, and features that encourage “social comparison,” such as leaderboards and kill counts, could be restricted for minors.
Scott warns this could set off a race to patch or switch off older titles, and could “turn the EU into a pariah state for videogames.” To add, w
Even the publishers are pushing back
It’s not only players who are worried. Video Games Europe, the lobby group representing some of the world’s biggest publishers, said it shares the Commission’s goal of protecting children.
It still warned against sweeping age checks that apply to every game and every player, saying they abandon the risk-based approach of existing EU rules. The group argues that existing rating systems like PEGI and parental controls already do the job, that children’s right to protection has to be balanced against their right to play, and it is calling for a public consultation.
Lauro Fava, a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, told EUobserver that the Commission “arguably downplayed” compliance costs. He also noted that the impact assessment gives no real cost estimates, which he called “strange.” Advocacy group Gamer’s Voice warned that small games simply won’t be able to afford it.
What happens next
This is still a proposal, not law. It has to pass the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and it will almost certainly be amended along the way. Laws like this usually take years to get through Brussels, which gives players and developers time to push back. Stop Killing Games is asking people to spread the word, and some MEPs have reportedly already raised concerns.
We Would Rather Remain Apolitical
Protecting kids online is a goal nobody argues with. But this proposal makes people hand over ID to play a game, puts hobbyist server hosts in legal jeopardy, and reaches back to cover games released decades ago.
I have never seen a government so hell-bent on creating a mass surveillance state. If the only way to make the internet “safe” is to tie every player to an ID, then what’s being protected isn’t children. It’s control, and I wouldn’t be speaking out against this unless it affected folks who enjoy games this badly.
About The Author
