A recent statement from Jennifer Gibbons, the Vice President of State Government Affairs at the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), has sparked considerable discussion 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 Minecraft and Call of Duty are “illegal” and equate to “piracy.” This declaration came amidst a debate on the feasibility of privately hosted servers that would allow consumers to continue playing games after publishers have ceased support.
Ward responded to inquiries about community servers by highlighting their existence, noting, “Minecraft is currently hosted by community servers,” and adding that Call of Duty also has similar options available. In a surprising turn, Gibbons interjected, stating, “They’re illegal. They are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft, for Minecraft, has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.”
When pressed further by a committee member about whether private servers could be likened to a “black market” for video games, Gibbons affirmed, “Yes. 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.” However, PC Gamer pointed out that the USTR’s reports specifically target servers that enable users to bypass subscription fees, a classification that does not apply to Minecraft or Call of Duty, as players can access these games online for free on PC.
The video game industry lobbies against regulation
This incident is not the first time the ESA has opposed the Protect Our Games Act. Stan Pierre-Louis, the ESA President and CEO, previously published an opinion piece on the ESA’s official website, arguing that the bill, while seemingly consumer-friendly, ultimately harms both players and creators. He stated, “Many games today are live, connected experiences that depend on online communities and evolving content… AB 1921 doesn’t just misunderstand games. It undermines the very thing it claims to protect.”
However, this “consumer-friendly” narrative is called into question when considering the ESA’s previous lobbying efforts against the banning of loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in games aimed at minors in 2019. This raises an intriguing question: why does the ESA appear to advocate against video game preservation while supporting monetization strategies that target younger audiences?
For context, the ESA operates as a non-profit organization, making its financials relatively transparent. In the fiscal year ending March 2025, the ESA reported a total revenue of ,614,556, with ,804,681 derived from member dues paid by major industry players such as Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Epic Games, Nintendo, Amazon, Take-Two, Ubisoft, and Sony Interactive Entertainment.
On the expenditure side, the ESA allocated ,510,258 during the same fiscal year, with significant portions directed toward compensation for key personnel and lobbying efforts. Notably, nearly .3 million of the compensation budget was earmarked for ESA President Stanley Pierre-Louis and ESRB President Patricia Vance. As the ESA’s revenue from events like E3 has dwindled since the early 2000s, membership fees have become the primary source of income, with a staggering increase of approximately 1,700 percent in fees between 2006 and 2009.
It is also worth mentioning that Video Games Europe, another organization representing numerous AAA publishers, has similarly lobbied against the Stop Killing Games initiative within the European Union, suggesting a broader industry trend.
In an update from June 30, 2026, an ESA representative clarified Gibbons’ position on private servers, stating, “Private servers that host or distribute copyrighted game content without authorization infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers. While publishers may take different approaches, all publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against IP infringement.” The representative further explained that Gibbons was responding to a complex question where the terms community server and private server were used interchangeably.
ESA Lobbyist Calls Private Minecraft Servers Illegal During Hearing
A recent statement from Jennifer Gibbons, the Vice President of State Government Affairs at the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), has sparked considerable discussion 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 Minecraft and Call of Duty are “illegal” and equate to “piracy.” This declaration came amidst a debate on the feasibility of privately hosted servers that would allow consumers to continue playing games after publishers have ceased support.
Ward responded to inquiries about community servers by highlighting their existence, noting, “Minecraft is currently hosted by community servers,” and adding that Call of Duty also has similar options available. In a surprising turn, Gibbons interjected, stating, “They’re illegal. They are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft, for Minecraft, has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.”
When pressed further by a committee member about whether private servers could be likened to a “black market” for video games, Gibbons affirmed, “Yes. 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.” However, PC Gamer pointed out that the USTR’s reports specifically target servers that enable users to bypass subscription fees, a classification that does not apply to Minecraft or Call of Duty, as players can access these games online for free on PC.
The video game industry lobbies against regulation
This incident is not the first time the ESA has opposed the Protect Our Games Act. Stan Pierre-Louis, the ESA President and CEO, previously published an opinion piece on the ESA’s official website, arguing that the bill, while seemingly consumer-friendly, ultimately harms both players and creators. He stated, “Many games today are live, connected experiences that depend on online communities and evolving content… AB 1921 doesn’t just misunderstand games. It undermines the very thing it claims to protect.”
However, this “consumer-friendly” narrative is called into question when considering the ESA’s previous lobbying efforts against the banning of loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in games aimed at minors in 2019. This raises an intriguing question: why does the ESA appear to advocate against video game preservation while supporting monetization strategies that target younger audiences?
For context, the ESA operates as a non-profit organization, making its financials relatively transparent. In the fiscal year ending March 2025, the ESA reported a total revenue of ,614,556, with ,804,681 derived from member dues paid by major industry players such as Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Epic Games, Nintendo, Amazon, Take-Two, Ubisoft, and Sony Interactive Entertainment.
On the expenditure side, the ESA allocated ,510,258 during the same fiscal year, with significant portions directed toward compensation for key personnel and lobbying efforts. Notably, nearly .3 million of the compensation budget was earmarked for ESA President Stanley Pierre-Louis and ESRB President Patricia Vance. As the ESA’s revenue from events like E3 has dwindled since the early 2000s, membership fees have become the primary source of income, with a staggering increase of approximately 1,700 percent in fees between 2006 and 2009.
It is also worth mentioning that Video Games Europe, another organization representing numerous AAA publishers, has similarly lobbied against the Stop Killing Games initiative within the European Union, suggesting a broader industry trend.
In an update from June 30, 2026, an ESA representative clarified Gibbons’ position on private servers, stating, “Private servers that host or distribute copyrighted game content without authorization infringe on the intellectual property (IP) rights of game publishers. While publishers may take different approaches, all publishers reserve the right to exercise their rights against IP infringement.” The representative further explained that Gibbons was responding to a complex question where the terms community server and private server were used interchangeably.