The Safer GAMING Act Mandates Default Safety Controls for Minors in Online Video Games

The newly proposed Safer GAMING Act is aimed squarely at the online video game industry, specifically targeting how minors interact and communicate in internet-connected games. Essentially, this bill forces companies that run “interactive online video games”—meaning games where players can talk to each other—to build in specific, default safety measures for kids.

The New Default Setting for Kids

If you’re a parent whose kid is glued to a game where they can chat with strangers, this bill is designed to give you back some control. The core requirement (SEC. 2) is that if a game provider knows a user is under 18—a “covered user”—the company must provide tools that let parents limit their child’s communication with other users. The key detail here is the “default” setting: these communication limits must be turned on automatically when the child’s account is created. Furthermore, this protective setting can only be disabled by the parent, not the child, and it must be included in the game’s most protective privacy setting right out of the box.

What “Knowing” Means for Game Companies

This law hinges on the definition of “knows,” which is defined as having “actual knowledge or to act in willful disregard of the facts.” This means game providers can’t just turn a blind eye. If a company has reason to believe a user is a minor—say, they used a birthdate during sign-up—they are on the hook for implementing these default protections. For the gaming industry, this means potentially overhauling account creation and privacy settings, which must be “accessible and easy to use” for parents. They have one year from the bill’s enactment to make these changes.

The Enforcement Squad: FTC and State AGs

Who makes sure these multi-billion-dollar companies actually follow through? The bill gives enforcement power to two big players. First, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will treat any violation as an unfair or deceptive practice, using its standard authority to go after non-compliant companies. Second, state attorneys general can also file lawsuits on behalf of their residents to stop violations and seek damages. This dual enforcement mechanism means companies face regulatory risk from both federal and state levels, which often encourages quicker compliance.

The Fine Print: Preemption and Ambiguity

While the bill is a win for parental controls, there are a couple of things to note. The law includes a preemption clause, meaning it overrides any existing or future state or local laws that cover the same ground. This creates a national standard but limits the ability of states to implement stronger, more tailored protections if they conflict with the federal rule. Additionally, the requirement that safety tools be “accessible and easy to use” is pretty vague (SEC. 2). This lack of specific criteria could lead to disputes between regulators and the industry over whether a company’s compliance meets the spirit of the law, potentially slowing down the rollout of truly effective controls.