The Entertainment Software Association took an unusual stance during a California legislative hearing this week, claiming that private Minecraft servers constitute illegal piracy and operate outside the bounds of acceptable gaming infrastructure.
The comments came during testimony on the Protect Our Games Act, a bill aimed at requiring publishers to maintain server access or provide alternatives if they shut down official game services. When an assemblyman cited Minecraft and Call of Duty as examples of games that already function on community-run servers, Jennifer Gibbons, the ESA's vice president of state government affairs, flatly objected.
"They're illegal," Gibbons said. "They are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft."
She characterized private servers as a "black market" for video games and said the ESA considers them piracy, citing two pending lawsuits against private server operators. Gibbons also referenced reports from the United States Trade Representative naming some private servers as notorious markets for counterfeiting and piracy.
The claim runs into a straightforward problem: Minecraft's own website actively encourages players to set up private servers and hosts an official server list where community-run servers are reviewed and verified to meet company standards.
"Each server offers its own brand of fun and uniqueness," the Minecraft website states. "Find your favorite with our Server List Site, where all listed servers have been reviewed and verified as following our community standards and guidelines."
When contacted, an ESA representative provided a statement framing the issue differently, arguing that "private servers infringe on the intellectual property rights of game publishers" and that publishers must retain the ability to enforce those rights. The statement also raised safety and oversight concerns, saying private servers "operate with no oversight from the publisher and do not uphold the same trust and safety standards."
The distinction matters. The USTR report Gibbons referenced focuses on servers that allow players to bypass subscription requirements for games like World of Warcraft, not the community servers where players simply gather to play together. Those bypass servers represent circumvention of core gameplay mechanics, not an extension of existing play.
The Protect Our Games Act failed to advance in the hearing, though it was granted reconsideration and will get another chance. A volunteer with the Stop Killing Games campaign, which backed the bill, posted on Reddit that the ESA's testimony had done its job with legislators unprepared to fact-check on the spot.
"It worked just well enough this round," the volunteer wrote. "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."
The campaign pledged to return next session with in-person lobbyists, more funding, and a list of developer and organization backers ready to counter industry arguments in real time.
Author Emily Chen: "The ESA's claim about Minecraft servers being illegal piracy is demonstrably false, and the gap between that testimony and what Minecraft's own website says raises real questions about whether the industry is relying on lawmakers who won't look things up."
Comments