Contradicts the constitution and aims to restrict the industry, — Roman Lukyanov from Semenov & Pevzner on the bill to regulate the video game market
Today, December 12, a bill titled "On the Activities of Development and Distribution of Video Games in the Russian Federation" was submitted to the State Duma. We asked Roman Lukyanov, managing partner of the law firm Semenov&Pevzner, to share his opinion on the proposal.
Roman Lukyanov
It is unclear why this bill is needed at all.
Let's go through its contentious points.
Article 1 of the bill declares that it "defines the legal framework for the development and distribution of video games in the Russian Federation and establishes restrictions on these activities to protect morality, rights, and legitimate interests of citizens."
Video games are the result of intellectual activity. As of today, I know of no other intellectual property object that has a separate federal law written to "define the creation and distribution process." This formulation contradicts the freedom of creativity, which is enshrined and protected in Article 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Moving on.
Although the bill is positioned as supporting the industry, its subject matter indicates otherwise—it aims to restrict the industry.
According to Article 3 of the bill, there are only three directions for state regulation of video games:
- defining support measures for development;
- setting distribution requirements;
- supervising distribution.
It's crucial to note that the terminology in Article 4 is very raw.
Just as an example:
“A video game is a program for electronic computing machines created in artistic, educational, animated, or other forms based on a creative idea, reproducing images and sounds, combined by a plot, which may also be determined by user actions.”
Firstly, only a small number of games are purely electronic computing machines (ECMs). The vast majority are multimedia products.
Secondly, logical categories seemingly suggested for some future classification lack uniformity: “artistic, educational, animated” is like saying “white, cold, deep.”
Thirdly, the term implies that all games have a plot; two questions arise here—are all non-plot games not games? And secondly, what plot could an ECM have?
Throughout the text, similar issues arise with every term. For example, it states that “game assets are a set of electronic data.” I think civil law experts will be very surprised by this interpretation.
Again, even though the bill supposedly supports the industry, it largely focuses on detailing restrictions. It specifies:
- requirements for game distribution;
- requirements for the distributor;
- user identification requirements;
- requirements for informing users about the game;
- expertise requirements;
- etc.
Moreover, much of what the bill proposes to regulate is either already governed by broader norms of other federal laws (such as the Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection," the Federal Law "On Personal Data," etc.) or copied from similar norms aimed at regulating specific entities (OOIs, ABCs, etc.).
Less than 10% of the text actually focuses on industry support. Essentially, it is one article outlining support forms:
- full or partial funding of video game development, or other financial support;
- organizing specialist training for video game development, supporting educational programs in specialties related to video game development;
- conducting scientific and analytical research on video game issues;
- providing tax and fee benefits to organizations involved in video game development in accordance with tax and levy legislation.
What are my thoughts after reviewing the bill?
In my personal view, the current version of the bill does not align with the goals of the Federal Law "On the Development of Creative Industries in the Russian Federation" (effective February 5, 2025). Notably, this law contains an entire chapter on state support measures for creative sectors, offering far more than this proposed bill.
The bill either duplicates provisions of other, already enacted federal laws, occasionally contradicts their content, contains vague terminology, and essentially creates additional barriers for an industry that is, frankly speaking, not in its best condition. At the very least, this bill is unlikely to help the industry.
Consider this for comparison. In Korea, since 2013 there has been the Game Industry Promotion Act. It has 48 extensive articles (compared to our 13) and various appendices. I think it's no secret how the Korean game development sector is faring. Just for comparison, the purpose of this law is articulated as promoting national economic development and enhancing the quality of cultural life by developing the game industry and fostering healthy game culture, by establishing the foundation for the game industry and regulating issues related to game product usage. I wouldn't draw any conclusions, but it seems this goal is far more advantageous than “defining the framework for activities and limiting the development and distribution of games.”
