The bill is the subject of a court case (oral arguments before the Supreme Court begin November 2). Here I reproduce a few posts I made as comments to articles on Gamespot about the bill. A link to the most recent article and the bill itself are here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6274620.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Btitle%3B2 http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/ab_1179%5B1%5D.pdf Some fellow law students and I have been discussing it, and the consensus is that the law won't stand. It can't, if for no other reason than for the requirement of the warning label. The short answer is that the law's effect is disproportionate to any harm it seeks to remedy. There was a similar case regarding apple sales in North Carolina where the state required all apples sold or transported through the NC to bear only the FDA quality label, ignoring the fact that the WA rating system is nationally recognized and effective (like the ESRB in this case). The Court struck the law down; just like that case, the burden on publishers to make special labels for CA is too great for the benefit, since the ESRB already bans really violent games from those under 17 anyway, and closing that one-year 'gap' between 17 and 18 isn't very important to this law's admitted purpose. To note a point mentioned by some others on this topic, access to other media that fit this law's definition of too-violent-for-minors is easily had. ...Another strong point against the law (also mentioned by a previous post) is that its definition of "violent" is too broad. Virtually any game can be argued to fit under the law (vampires, elves, etc. look like humans, and I'm sure the authors of the law would argue for their fitting into the definition as well), and face banning from sale to minors. It may be a moot point, since many minors have parents buy their games up to the point where the minors start working themselves. Regardless, the law probably won't stand, even without reaching the constitutional arguments. Please forgive the grammar slip in the previous post: I had cut a section out of the middle and didn't correct for it. It does in fact apply to characters with "substantially human characteristics," and to games that merely ALLOW violence to be done (not even encourage it--and as many gamers know, many games allow things the developers don't intend or endorse). It also defines terms like "cruel," "heinous (shockingly atrocious, whatever that means...)," and "serious physical abuse." The latter is particularly troubling for its breadth: it means "a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim’s body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing." Essentially, all a player needs to do is intend unconsciousness for a game character for the game to be covered and banned to minors.