Stop Killing Games successfully reached its goal of amassing 1 million EU signatures earlier this year, but one big question was still hanging over the campaign: Were enough of those signatures valid? It seems that the initiative has cleared this hurdle, however, and it now seems the long-awaited EU hearing is “all but guaranteed.”
By now, the name of “Stop Killing Games” has become synonymous with this European Citizens’ Initiative – which is, itself, technically called Stop Destroying Videogames. The Citizens’ Initiative is a process where EU citizens can petition for intervention in a specific issue. If organizers are able to gather 1 million signatures, they can present their issue to the European Commission, which will then make a decision on what action to take.
Back in June, the Stop Destroying Videogames petition seemed destined to fail well short of that 1 million signature goal, but a sudden boost in notoriety soon had new signees joining by the millions. By July, Stop Killing Games founder Ross Scott had started to worry there was a “chance” that “a significant number” of those signatures weren’t legit.
Those worries, it seems, are unfounded. In a Reddit post outlining the current state of the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, organizers report that “verification is now underway, and early reports from several countries show around 97% of signatures being valid — excellent news that puts us in a very strong position going forward.”
“It looks like my worrying in July was for nothing,” Scott adds in a tweet. “Not all the signatures have been counted yet for the ECI, but for the ones that have, the validity rate is about 97%. I think this means a hearing before the EU Commission is all but guaranteed.”
“Your signatures are being checked by national authorities,” Stop Destroying Videogames organizers say, “a process that will take about three months. Once complete, we will personally deliver the petition to the European Commission. That moment will mark the start of the legislative phase — where the Commission and Parliament must decide how to respond.”