Yeah, I read the language on their website and they seemed to be holding a much stricter line. Here the line seems more blurry where :

• in that same paragraph they say "remain voluntary" and "should require"
• "unless strictly necessary" is undefined. Is it all adult contents or banks, insurance and administrative procedure (which already often require IDs) that count as necessary ?
• Do they have solutions for that "privacy preserving" proof of age ?

I am not part the campaign so I'm only trying to guess.

Edit: I have mailed up the Representative of the ECI, I will send an update if i receive a response.

I get the feeling the StopKilling[Thing] people are starting to push for weaker and weaker laws just so that they can say they did something. EU commission shot down your games initiative? No worries, the already proposed Digitial Fairness Act does the same thing anyways!

California's proposed bill completely ignores preservation by allowing games to be deleted so long as purchasers receive a refund? That's a win!

Also I just looked up the California bill, it has been amended.

It used to read:

A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser

Now it reads:

A refund in an amount equal to the highest price of the digital game offered by the digital game operator within the 12 months before the digital game operator ceases providing services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.

So if the studio drops the price to $1 a year before taking the game away then they can delete everyone's copy by giving them $1 without breaking this law.

The StopKillingGames people made a fanfare about the initial legislation, but they seem to be silent on this amendment.