California videogame law ruled unconstitutional
State has until May to appeal VSDA v. Schwarzenegger ruling
By Cheryl Cheng -- Video Business, 3/10/2009
MARCH 10 | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in the VSDA v. Schwarzenegger case that found a 2005 videogame restriction law enacted by the state of California to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
The California videogame law would restrict the sale of games that depict violence offensive to the community or violence depicted in an “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” manner.
The court stated in its ruling last month: “As the Act is a content-based regulation, it is subject to strict scrutiny and is presumptively invalid. Under strict scrutiny, the State has not produced substantial evidence that supports the Legislature’s conclusion that violent videogames cause psychological or neurological harm to minors. Even if it did, the Act is not narrowly tailored to prevent that harm and there remain less restrictive means of forwarding the State’s purported interests, such as the improved ESRB rating system, enhanced educational campaigns and parental controls.”
The court also struck down a law provision that would require violent videogames to be labeled with an “18” sticker, in light of its ruling that the sale of such games to minors cannot be legally prohibited.
The state of California has until late May to decide whether to seek a review of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Utah House earlier this month approved a bill that would more strictly enforce videogame ratings. Bill 353 declares that a deceptive trade practice occurs if a retailer advertises that it will not sell a product labeled with an age restriction or age advisory to anyone under the age specified but then proceeds to do so.
The Entertainment Merchants Assn. opposes the measure, and it has fought for an amended bill that gives exemptions for situations in which the purchaser misrepresents his age and a “safe harbor” provision for retailers that train employees on ratings enforcement. Senate action is pending.
Also, EMA has expanded its FAQ sheet on the recently enacted Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act to cover the phthalate restriction requirements as well as general conformity, lead content, tracking label and advertising label requirements. A copy can be requested from EMA VP of public affairs Sean Bersell.
