Power To The Players Act: Digital Game Ownership Bill

A New York congressman wants to settle, by law, a question that has nagged at PC and console owners for a decade: when you buy a digital game, do you actually own it? On October 15, 2026, Rep. Ritchie Torres, who represents New York’s 15th Congressional District, announced he will introduce the Power To The Players Act, a bill that would direct the Federal Trade Commission to write rules guaranteeing that a game purchase means ownership, not a revocable license. The announcement, first detailed on Torres’ official site and picked up within a day by Ars Technica, Polygon and several gaming outlets, has reopened one of the industry’s longest-running consumer fights at a moment when publishers are shutting down servers, delisting titles and leaning harder on subscriptions than ever before.

The timing is not an accident. Console hardware sales have been sliding, subscription services are squeezing out traditional purchases, and several high-profile game shutdowns over the past few years have left paying customers with nothing to show for their money. Torres is betting that digital game ownership is the kind of plain-English consumer issue that can cut across party lines in a way more abstract tech policy fights cannot.

Google · Preferred Sources

Don't miss new tech stories on Google

Add TrendinTech once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.

Add Now

What the Power To The Players Act Actually Proposes

According to the announcement posted on Rep. Torres’ official congressional website, the Power To The Players Act would direct the FTC to establish regulations that treat the purchase of a digital game as a transfer of ownership rather than the sale of a limited license. In practice, that means a consumer who buys a copy of a game outright, rather than renting or subscribing to it, would gain a legal claim to keep, play and in some cases transfer that copy, regardless of what a platform’s terms of service currently say.

Three elements of the proposal stand out. First, it would require games with online functionality to ship an offline mode before their supporting servers get shut down, so owners are not locked out the moment a publisher decides to pull the plug. Second, it would protect a buyer’s right to transfer a purchased game, which opens the door to a legal secondhand market for digital titles that currently does not exist on most storefronts. Third, it would push enforcement through the FTC rather than through the courts, meaning the agency would write and police the rules instead of leaving consumers to sue publishers one at a time.

Digital game ownership, as Torres frames it, is not a new concept so much as a restoration of an old one. Before always-online stores and cloud saves, buying a cartridge or a disc meant the game was yours until it broke or you sold it. The bill argues that switching the delivery method from plastic to a download should not have quietly stripped buyers of that right.

Who Is Rep. Ritchie Torres, and Why This Fight

Torres, a Democrat who has represented the Bronx-based NY-15 district since 2021, has built a reputation for consumer-facing tech and housing legislation rather than gaming-specific policy, which is part of what made this announcement notable to outlets covering it. Inven Global described the pitch in blunt terms: if you buy a game, it is yours. That framing matters because it sidesteps the more technical arguments about digital rights management and licensing law that have kept this issue stuck in advocacy circles for years, and instead states the proposal as a simple fairness claim that any buyer can understand.

Torres has publicly framed the problem as one of mislabeling. A transaction that looks and feels like a sale, complete with a price, a purchase button and a receipt, should not quietly function as a rental that a publisher can cancel at will. That distinction between a sale and a license is the legal hinge the entire bill turns on, and it is the same distinction that has driven consumer complaints against game publishers, software vendors and streaming services for more than a decade.

How Digital Game Licensing Works Today

To understand why the Power To The Players Act matters, it helps to look at what buyers actually agree to right now. Almost every major digital storefront, from console marketplaces to PC launchers, sells games under an end user license agreement rather than a traditional sale. That license typically grants the right to install and play a title on supported hardware for as long as the service operates, but it stops short of granting ownership in the legal sense. Publishers retain the ability to revoke access, pull a title from sale, or shut down the servers a game depends on, and buyers generally have little recourse beyond a refund request within a narrow return window.

This arrangement became the industry default gradually, as physical discs gave way to downloads and always-online features became standard even in single-player games. Few buyers read the license terms closely enough to notice the shift, and fewer still have tested what happens when a publisher decides to walk away from a title, until it actually happens to a game they own.

The Server Shutdown Problem

Server shutdowns are the clearest example of what the bill is trying to prevent. When a publisher ends support for an online-dependent game, players can lose access entirely, even to content and progress they paid for, sometimes with only weeks of advance notice. The Power To The Players Act’s offline mode requirement is a direct response to this pattern: if a game can run without a live server, the publisher would have to make that mode available before support ends, rather than leaving buyers with a disc or download that simply refuses to launch.

The FTC’s Role If the Bill Advances

Routing enforcement through the Federal Trade Commission is a deliberate choice. The FTC already regulates deceptive and unfair trade practices, and it has shown growing interest in software licensing disputes, subscription cancellation rules and dark patterns in digital storefronts. Giving the agency explicit authority to write digital game ownership rules would let it set industry-wide standards rather than relying on state attorneys general or private lawsuits to chip away at the problem one publisher at a time.

That said, an FTC rulemaking process, if the bill becomes law, would likely take months or years to finalize, including public comment periods and the near-certainty of legal challenges from publisher trade groups. Nothing about Tuesday’s announcement guarantees speed, and the bill itself had not been formally introduced as a numbered piece of legislation at the time outlets reported on it, meaning it still needs a sponsor to file it, committee assignment, and floor consideration before an FTC rule could even begin.

Industry Reaction and the Subscription Counter-Pressure

The proposal lands at an awkward moment for an industry that has been pushing buyers toward subscriptions rather than one-time purchases. Services that bundle large game libraries for a monthly fee, the kind of comparison covered in our breakdown of subscription pricing across Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo, operate on a licensing model by design: access ends the moment a subscription lapses, by definition. A digital game ownership law would not ban subscriptions, but it would sharpen the legal line between a subscription-based rental and an outright purchase, which could force platforms to be far more explicit about which transactions actually transfer ownership and which do not.

Publisher trade groups have not issued detailed point-by-point responses to the specific bill text, since no formal legislative language had circulated publicly as of the announcement. But the broader industry has resisted similar ownership mandates before, generally arguing that offline modes and transfer rights are technically difficult for games built around live services, matchmaking, and anti-cheat systems that depend on a central server. Critics of that argument counter that plenty of online games already ship local or offline modes without issue, and that the real obstacle is business incentive rather than engineering.

Layoffs and studio closures elsewhere in the industry add another layer of context. Ubisoft’s recent decision to shut down its RedLynx studio, detailed in our report on the Singapore job cuts, is a reminder that publishers routinely wind down support for teams and titles when they stop being profitable. A digital ownership law would not stop studio closures, but it would change what happens to the games those studios leave behind.

Market Impact: Why Timing Matters Right Now

The bill arrives as the console hardware market is already under pressure. Our coverage of the sector showed Xbox and PlayStation hardware sales falling sharply this year, with broader hardware figures hitting a 13-year low across the category. When hardware sales soften, software revenue and recurring subscription income become more important to publisher bottom lines, which is exactly the dynamic a digital game ownership law would complicate. If buyers gain a clearer legal claim to the games they purchase, publishers lose some flexibility to monetize a title repeatedly through re-releases, remasters, or paywalled continuations of content players thought they already owned.

There is also a hardware upgrade angle. Adoption data we reported on the PS5 Pro’s slow uptake suggests many players are holding onto older hardware and older game libraries longer than publishers would like. A legal guarantee that those older purchases remain playable and transferable could reinforce that behavior, giving consumers one more reason to stick with what they already own rather than buying into a new hardware generation or subscription tier.

How Platforms Currently Compare on Ownership

Digital game ownership is not treated the same way across every storefront today, and that inconsistency is part of what the bill is trying to iron out. The table below summarizes how the major platforms generally handle licensing, offline access and resale under their current terms of service, based on each platform’s publicly posted policies.

Platform	Current Model	Offline Play	Resale Allowed	Notable Risk
Steam (Valve)	Non-transferable license	Yes, for most titles	No	Account-tied library, no resale
Xbox Store	Non-transferable license	Varies by title	No	Live-service titles depend on servers
PlayStation Store	Non-transferable license	Varies by title	No	Delistings remove titles from sale
Nintendo eShop	Non-transferable license	Varies by title	No	Online services tied to subscription
GOG (CD Projekt)	DRM-free download	Yes	Informally, via file transfer	Smaller catalog than rivals

GOG stands out in that table because it has marketed itself for years as the DRM-free alternative, letting buyers keep installer files indefinitely. It is a useful real-world proof that an ownership-first model can coexist with a functioning storefront, even if GOG’s catalog is smaller than Steam’s or the console stores. The Power To The Players Act, in effect, is asking whether every platform should be required to offer something closer to that GOG-style guarantee, at least for the offline and transfer pieces.

The Stop Killing Games Connection

Torres’ proposal does not exist in isolation. It echoes the Stop Killing Games campaign, a consumer movement that gathered a large volume of signatures for a European Citizens’ Initiative aimed at forcing publishers to leave purchased games in a playable state after official support ends. That campaign has spent more than a year building momentum in the European Union, and its core argument, that a purchased game should not be destroyable at a publisher’s discretion, is functionally the same argument behind the Power To The Players Act’s offline mode requirement.

The parallel matters strategically. If US lawmakers can point to a parallel European effort with real public support, it gives the American version of the argument more weight, and it raises the possibility that publishers could eventually face similar ownership rules on both sides of the Atlantic rather than being able to treat this as a problem limited to one market.

Historical Context: From Cartridges to Clouds

The ownership question did not start with this bill, and it will not end with it either. Physical media carried an implicit ownership guarantee: a cartridge or disc worked as long as the hardware did, with no server, account or license check required. The shift to digital distribution, which accelerated through the 2010s as broadband became reliable enough to support large downloads, traded that durability for convenience. Buyers got instant access and cloud saves, but they also inherited a licensing structure that most people never agreed to in any meaningful sense beyond clicking “I agree” on a terms of service screen.

Game preservationists have warned for years that this shift puts entire swaths of gaming history at risk, since a delisted or shut-down digital title can vanish far more completely than a disc that simply stops being printed. The Power To The Players Act, whether or not it ultimately passes, is the clearest sign yet that this argument has moved from preservation forums into actual proposed federal policy.

Key Facts and Timeline of the Power To The Players Act

Here is a compact rundown of what has been confirmed so far, and what remains open as the bill moves toward a potential formal introduction.

Detail	Status
Sponsor	Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15)
Bill name	Power To The Players Act
Announcement date	October 15, 2026
Proposed enforcement agency	Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Core rule	Game purchase equals ownership, not a license
Offline mode requirement	Required before servers shut down, for titles that support it
Transfer and resale rights	Proposed goal of the bill
Formal introduction in Congress	Not yet confirmed at time of announcement
Bill number, cosponsors, committee	Not yet confirmed

That last row matters more than it might appear. A press announcement is not the same as a filed bill, and a filed bill is not the same as a law. Every outlet that covered the story, including Polygon and XenoSpectrum, was careful to note that the Power To The Players Act had been announced as a plan rather than confirmed as introduced legislation with an assigned bill number.

Legislative Odds: What Happens Next in Congress

Consumer protection bills aimed at a single industry tend to move slowly in Congress unless they attract bipartisan cosponsors or get folded into a broader package. The Power To The Players Act would need to clear committee review, survive markup, and win floor votes in both chambers before heading to the president’s desk, a path that routinely takes multiple sessions of Congress even for popular ideas. Digital game ownership as a concept polls well with the public in informal surveys and online discussion, since almost every gamer has a personal story about losing access to something they paid for, but broad popularity with voters does not automatically translate into floor time on a crowded legislative calendar.

Industry lobbying groups representing major publishers have historically opposed ownership mandates on cost and technical-complexity grounds, and they are likely to push back hard if the bill gains traction, arguing that live-service architecture makes blanket offline mode requirements impractical for every title. Whether that argument holds up to scrutiny, given that many online games already ship local or LAN modes, will likely become a central point of debate if hearings are ever scheduled.

What This Means for Gamers Right Now

For the average buyer, nothing changes today. Current storefront terms of service remain in effect, and no FTC rule exists yet to enforce. But the announcement itself has value as a signal: it puts publishers on notice that digital game ownership is back on the federal policy radar, and it gives advocacy groups a concrete piece of legislation to rally support around rather than a vague grievance.

Players weighing new hardware or subscription purchases, including the handheld market covered in our look at the Switch 2 and ROG Xbox Ally X comparison, might reasonably start paying closer attention to which of their purchases are actual sales and which are licenses dressed up as sales, since that distinction is exactly what the bill is trying to force into the open.

Expert and Industry Voices

Rep. Torres has been consistent in how he frames the core argument. In a statement tied to the bill’s announcement, he said, “When you pay for a game, you should own it,” a line reported by Ars Technica. He expanded on that point in the same statement: “Consumers must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer the games they buy.”

Speaking with Kotaku, Torres put the principle even more simply: “I think there should be a simple rule: if you pay for it, you own it.” He has also taken direct aim at the practice of pulling access after a sale, telling IGN, “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.” That line captures the legal distinction at the heart of the bill better than any policy summary: a sale that can be undone by the seller at will does not function like a sale in any ordinary sense of the word.

Predictions: Where Digital Ownership Rights Go From Here

Expect publisher trade groups to request a lengthy comment period if the bill reaches an FTC rulemaking stage, slowing any practical change well beyond 2026.
Consumer advocacy groups will likely use the bill as a rallying point even if it stalls in committee, similar to how the Stop Killing Games campaign kept pressure on the EU without immediate legislative results.
Platforms may start quietly expanding offline modes and clarifying license language in their terms of service to get ahead of regulatory risk, regardless of whether the bill passes.
Other members of Congress, in states with large gaming constituencies or active esports economies, could introduce companion or competing proposals rather than letting Torres’ bill stand alone.
If the bill fails to advance in this session, watch for a state-level version, since state attorneys general have shown growing interest in digital marketplace fairness rules even when federal action stalls.

Competitive Field: Ownership as a Selling Point

If digital game ownership becomes a regulatory requirement rather than a marketing choice, it could reshuffle how platforms compete. Right now, GOG’s DRM-free approach is a niche selling point for a specific type of buyer. Under a federal mandate, every major storefront would need some version of that guarantee, which removes it as a competitive differentiator and forces platforms to compete on other factors, such as library size, cloud gaming performance, or subscription value, the kind of comparison we covered in our breakdown of VR headset pricing and game library gaps. In that sense, the bill would not just protect consumers, it would level a playing field that currently rewards whichever platform writes the most permissive license terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Power To The Players Act already a law?
No. As of the October 15, 2026 announcement, Rep. Torres had announced plans to introduce the bill, but it had not been confirmed as formally filed with a bill number, let alone passed by Congress.

Who proposed this bill?
Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat representing New York’s 15th Congressional District.

What would change for buyers if it passes?
Buying a digital game would legally count as ownership rather than a license, with protections for continued play, offline access before server shutdowns, and the ability to transfer purchased games.

Which agency would enforce the new rules?
The bill proposes giving the Federal Trade Commission authority to write and enforce digital game ownership regulations.

Does this affect game subscriptions like Game Pass or PS Plus?
The bill targets outright purchases rather than subscription access, but it could force clearer distinctions between what counts as a sale versus a subscription-based rental.

Is this related to the Stop Killing Games campaign?
The goals overlap closely. Stop Killing Games pushed similar offline-access demands in the European Union, and the Power To The Players Act applies a comparable principle to US federal policy.

Will digital game prices go up if this becomes law?
No pricing impact has been confirmed or estimated by any outlet covering the announcement. Any claim about price changes at this stage would be speculation.

When could this actually take effect?
There is no confirmed timeline. The bill still needs formal introduction, committee review, and passage in both chambers of Congress before any FTC rulemaking could begin, a process that typically spans years rather than months.

NY-15 Rep’s Bill Could End Game Licenses for Good [2026]