Failed California gaming law proves costly

Game Law Head
The law introduced by the State of California in 2005 which would have made the sale of violent video games to minors illegal, putting gaming on a par with pornography in that State, has produced a costly legal bill for the State government. The government has to foot the bill for the appeal, which was rejected last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the legal costs incurred by the the video game industry defenders. The California government has also ready shelled out separate payments of $286 000 and $96 000 to the video game industry's legal team and has become liable for another $950 000 which accrued during the Supreme Court appeal. In addition they were saddled with around $500 000 in costs on their end while attempting to bring the gaming law into action. The just-shy-of-$2 million spent on the case isn't a massive amount but, according to lawyer Paul M. Smith who represented the games industry:
I think it's fair to say the industry warned the state that they were just getting themselves into a big legal mess and they would end up having to pay attorney fees – and that's exactly what happened"
Although the money spend on the legal challenge was essentially wasted, backers of the law have no regrets. Leland Yee, the law's creator, said:
When you fight the good fight for a cause you know is right and just, and it's about protecting kids, you don't ever regret that."

Sources :

The Sacremento Bee:
via Ars Technica:


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author: Admin View all posts by
  • I never saw this bill as a bad thing. Selling games that are R18 to minors should definitely be illegal.

    • Existing rating systems do the same job but with no government involvement (most stores in the US demand a form of identification before allowing you to purchase), making the law a bit pointless.
      Shouldn’t a child’s access to a violent video game be something that parents are responsible for rather than having a government set rules about it? As far as I know they don’t legislate which brand of baby food you are required to buy, why should they be involved in this aspect of parenting?