Lobbyist Argues Minecraft and Call of Duty Community Servers Are ‘Illegal’ at ‘Stop Killing Games’ Hearing
A recent statement from the VP of State Government Affairs at the Entertainment Software Association, Jennifer Gibbons, has sparked quite a buzz online. During a California State Senate hearing focused on the Protect Our Games Act, Gibbons interrupted Assemblyman Chris Ward to assert that community servers for games like Minecraft and Call of Duty are “illegal” and equate to “piracy.”
The Protect Our Games Act was the main topic at the hearing held by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Assemblyman Ward presented the bill, which faced opposition from Gibbons. When questioned about the viability of privately hosted servers for games that no longer receive publisher support, Ward pointed out that community servers for both Minecraft and Call of Duty already exist.
“They’re illegal,” Gibbons interjected. “They are not affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft has faced criticism for these community servers not adhering to the same safety standards as their official Minecraft servers.”
Gibbons was then asked if private servers could be likened to a “black market” for video games, to which she responded affirmatively, stating, “Yes. In fact, we consider it piracy. We currently have two lawsuits pending against private servers, and the United States Trade Representative has identified some of these major private servers as notorious markets in their reports on counterfeiting and piracy.”
However, it’s worth noting that the USTR’s reports specifically target servers that allow users to bypass subscription fees, which doesn’t apply to Minecraft or Call of Duty, as players can access these games online for free on PC.
This isn’t the first time the ESA has opposed the Protect Our Games Act. ESA President and CEO Stan Pierre-Louis previously published a detailed opinion piece arguing that the bill, while seemingly consumer-friendly, ultimately harms both players and creators. He claimed that many modern games rely on online communities and evolving content, and that the bill misunderstands the nature of gaming.
Yet, Pierre-Louis’ stance on being “consumer-friendly” seems questionable, especially considering the ESA’s previous lobbying against banning loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in games aimed at minors in 2019. This raises questions about the ESA’s priorities regarding video game preservation versus monetization strategies.
As a non-profit organization, the ESA’s financials are publicly accessible. In the fiscal year ending March 2025, the ESA reported $36,614,556 in tax-exempt “program service revenue,” with $27,804,681 coming from member dues paid by major companies like Electronic Arts, Microsoft, and Sony Interactive Entertainment.
Their spending is also transparent. Out of the $35,510,258 spent in the same fiscal year, $4,819,280 went to compensation for key personnel, while $11,021,302 was allocated for salaries and wages, and $2,266,618 was spent on lobbying efforts. Notably, a significant portion of the compensation went to ESA President Stanley Pierre-Louis and ESRB President Patricia Vance.
Since the decline of revenue from E3 in the early 2000s, the ESA has increasingly relied on membership fees, which saw a staggering increase of about 1,700 percent between 2006 and 2009.
Additionally, Video Games Europe, another organization representing numerous AAA publishers, has also lobbied against the Protect Our Games Act in the European Union, which raises further questions about the broader industry stance on game preservation.
