Law / United States / 
California
Violent Video Games Act, sale and rental of violent video games to minors
An adult content age verification (AV) rule binding private bodies.
- Enforcement body
- City attorneys, county counsel, and district attorneys
As of .
What it requires
- The Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, decided ; the lines below state what sections 1746 to 1746.5 provided.
- A person could not sell or rent a video game labeled as a violent video game to a minor, meaning a natural person under 18 years of age, unless the sale or rental was by the minor's parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal guardian.
- Each violent video game imported into or distributed in California for retail sale had to be labeled with a solid white “18” outlined in black, at least 2 inches by 2 inches, on the front face of the package.
- It was an affirmative defense that the defendant, or the defendant's employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon evidence, such as a driver's license or an identification card issued by a state or by the Armed Forces of the United States, that the purchaser or renter was not a minor or that the manufacturer failed to label the game as required.
What it reaches
Age threshold
18
Covered services
Persons who sell or rent violent video games to minors, and violent video games imported into or distributed in California for retail sale.
Obligation class
Prohibition, Disclosure
Verification methods
Gov ID
What this law does
Each section of title 1.2A of the Civil Code, sections 1746 to 1746.5, states that it was added by Chapter 638 of the Statutes of 2005, effective . A person may not sell or rent a video game that has been labeled as a violent video game to a minor. A minor is a natural person who is under 18 years of age.
A violent video game is a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that meets one of two tests.
The first test is met when all three of the following are true: a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find that it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors; it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors; and it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
The second test is met when the game enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim.
Proof that a defendant, or his or her employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon evidence that a purchaser or renter of a violent video game was not a minor, or that the manufacturer failed to label a violent video game as required, is an affirmative defense to an action under the title. The sale and rental restriction does not apply if the violent video game is sold or rented to a minor by the minor's parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal guardian.
Each violent video game that is imported into or distributed in California for retail sale is to be labeled with a solid white “18” outlined in black, of no less than 2 inches by 2 inches, on the front face of the video game package.
A person who violates the title is liable in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or a lesser amount as determined by the court, except a person employed solely as a salesclerk or in a similar position who has no ownership interest in the business and is not employed as a manager. A violation may be prosecuted by any city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney.
In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, decided , the Supreme Court held that the Act cannot survive strict scrutiny and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app publishes adult content or serves under-18s.