ESA Calls Private Minecraft Servers “Illegal,” Labels Them Piracy in Hearing
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has sparked fresh debate during a California legislative hearing by calling private Minecraft servers “illegal,” framing them as a form of piracy. The comments landed in the middle of discussion about the Protect Our Games Act, a proposed “Stop Killing Games” measure aimed at keeping titles playable even if official server support is later ended.
Release & platform context: the bill’s focus on ongoing play
The Protect Our Games Act is being pushed as a policy that would require publishers to maintain playable access for players if servers are shut down. The arguments in this hearing referenced community-run multiplayer options on platforms such as PC (and specific examples spanning popular multiplayer titles), with Minecraft repeatedly used as a case study for how private hosting works in practice.
During a California State Senate hearing tied to the Protect Our Games Act, Assemblyman Chris Ward was pressed by committee members about the practical reality of continuing games on private servers if official support stops. Ward pointed out that Minecraft and Call of Duty both already have community server ecosystems, suggesting that the idea of player-run hosting is not hypothetical—it’s something that exists today in at least some forms.
ESA Vice President of State Government Affairs Jennifer Gibbons challenged Ward’s framing. She argued that community servers are not officially sanctioned and, in her view, they cross legal lines. “They’re illegal,” Gibbons said, emphasizing that these servers aren’t affiliated with Microsoft’s Minecraft operations.
Gibbons also claimed Microsoft has faced criticism over community servers that, she said, do not follow the same safety expectations used on Microsoft-run Minecraft servers. When a committee member asked whether private servers resemble a “black market” approach to games, Gibbons agreed with the comparison and further broadened the accusation.
According to Gibbons, the ESA treats these services as “piracy,” and the organization says litigation is already underway. She added that the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Notorious Markets Reports on counterfeiting and piracy have identified high-profile private servers as part of a notorious market list.
“Yes,” Gibbons said. “In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits—two pending lawsuits—against private servers right now, and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in their Notorious Markets Reports on counterfeiting and piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.”
Minecraft Chaos Cubed Screenshots – Minecraft Live March 2026
Those claims drew immediate pushback on the specific Minecraft example. The argument that this situation is “not true” for Minecraft centers on the fact that the game’s publisher maintains pages on its own website that encourage players to either build their own servers or browse third-party options.
It also notes that the listed servers are reviewed by Minecraft’s team for compliance with community rules and standards. An excerpt from Minecraft’s site states that each server offers its own style of gameplay and that players can search for favorites through a server list area—where entries are described as having been reviewed and verified for alignment with community standards and guidelines.
When the ESA was contacted for comment, it was sent a link to that Minecraft server listing content. In response, an ESA representative reiterated the organization’s position that private servers violate publishers’ intellectual property rights and that publishers should be able to enforce those rights.
The ESA representative’s statement added that a clause in California’s proposed AB 1921—which frames private hosting as a legitimate way to keep games running—raises concerns about whether publishers could still enforce their IP protections. The ESA also asserted that private servers run without publisher oversight and therefore do not uphold the same “trust and safety” safeguards.
From the ESA’s perspective, those differences could lead to an unsafe environment for players and potentially conflict with industry commitments to keep games safe and enjoyable for everyone.
PC Gamer’s reporting also highlighted a distinction in the USTR references being cited. The Notorious Markets Report mentioned by Gibbons, it was noted, does not appear to call out ordinary community servers intended for friends to play together. Instead, the report is described as focusing on services that help users bypass subscription-gated access for titles that require ongoing membership—example given being World of Warcraft—where the servers are framed as allowing players to dodge a core requirement rather than simply extending the original experience.
The 100 Best Xbox Games of All Time
While the Protect Our Games Act ultimately did not earn enough votes to advance, it did receive a reconsideration, meaning it could return for another attempt. During the process, a Stop Killing Games campaign volunteer posted to Reddit to address the situation and responded directly to what they characterized as the intent behind the claims made during hearings.
The volunteer wrote that “every one of these claims was designed to scare a busy legislator who does not have time to fact-check a well-dressed lobbyist in real time.” They continued: “It worked just well enough this round. It will not work when we are standing in the same room, with developers and players beside us, ready to answer every single claim as it happens.”
They closed with a pledge that the campaign will continue, stating: “Here is what happens next. We are not stopping. Not even close. Next session, we come back with an in-person lobbying presence, the funding to do this properly, and a long list of organizations and developers signed on in support.”
Cade Onder is a freelancer for IGN’s news team. He covers all things entertainment, including gaming, film, and more. You can find him on Twitter @Cade_Onder.
