VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO 

GAMES: INFORMING PARENTS AND 

PROTECTING CHILDREN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2006 

Serial No. 109-105 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

29-893PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO) 

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Parnes, Lydia, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission ... 22 

Severson, Gary, Senior Vice President, Merchandising, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc................. 32 

Lowenstein, Douglas, President, Entertainment Software Association ............................. 39 

Vance, Patricia E., President, Entertainment Software Rating Board................................ 88 

Thompson, Dr. Kimberly M., Director, Kids Risk Project, Associate Professor of Risk 

Analysis and Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, 

Harvard University......................................................................................................... 118 

Buckleitner, Dr. Warren, Ph.D., Editor, Children’s Technology Review.......................... 123 

Walsh, Dr. David, Ph.D., President, National Institute on Media and the Family............. 128 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Andersen, Crossan R., President, Entertainment Merchants Association, prepared 

statement of .................................................................................................................... 147 

Tripodi, Cynthia Merifeld, Executive Director, Pause Parent Play, prepared statement 

of..................................................................................................................................... 153 

(III) 

(1) 

VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES: 

INFORMING PARENTS AND 

PROTECTING CHILDREN 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon Cliff Stearns 

[Chairman] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stearns, Upton, Radanovich, Bass, Pitts, 

Terry, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Schakowsky, Markey, 

Towns and Baldwin. 

Also Present: Representative Matheson. 

Staff Present: David Cavicke, General Counsel; Chris Leahy, Policy 

Coordinator; Will Carty, Professional Staff Member; Billy Harvard, 

Legislative Clerk; Jonathan Cordone, Minority Counsel; and David 

Vogel, Minority Research Assistant. 

MR. STEARNS. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order. 

My colleagues, the rise of computer and video games as mainstream 

entertainment has been nothing short of meteoric. U.S. computer and 

video game software sales reached almost $10.5 billion in 2005, and 

more than double that since 1996. Worldwide computer and video 

games sales have hit over $30 billion. And, according to 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the global revenue of video game companies 

could reach over $55 billion in 2008, easily surpassing that of the music 

industry at $33 billion. 

While it is a global business, the U.S. computer and video game 

industry continues to be the benchmark for innovation. This spectacular 

rise of the video game juggernaut is not hard to understand when you see 

the creativity, the educational value, and the sheer fun the vast majority 

of games offer to gamers of every age, especially children, who are still 

the core market for this burgeoning industry. 

According to the Entertainment Software Association, games created 

for children age 17 and under constitute over 80 percent of the titles rated 
2

by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB. However, I also 

note that the top-selling game in 2004 was now the infamous Grand 

Theft Auto San Andreas, which is rated by ESRB as “M” for “Mature” 

audience, indicating that the game’s content is inappropriate for children 

under 17 years of age. Grand Theft Auto sold 5.1 million units in 2004, 

and pushed out Madden NFL Football from the number one spot. 

Madden NFL Football was rated “E” for “Everyone” by ESRB, suitable 

for children 6 years and older. 

“Mature”-rated games continue to be top sellers, and continue to 

push the limits of violence and sexually explicit content every year. 

Grand Theft Auto, which we will show a few clips from later, includes 

scenes that allow players to make drug deals, solicit prostitutes, gun 

down and bludgeon and mutilate police and EMS workers. And as a 

finale, they can fly a plane into a skyscraper. Now, I hardly call that 

educational or creative. 

This is not just a game. Building a video game around a premise 

based on very realistic cold-blooded assassination of innocent bystanders 

and police, the same law enforcement community that stands guard 

outside the doors of this hearing for our own protection, is not 

entertainment, in our opinion. This sort of twisted homicidal imagery is 

more akin to hate speech, not free speech. It targets those who are 

innocent, it stereotypes, it incites hate, and it breeds disrespect for those 

who are serving to protect all of us. 

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right, but when it involves 

very suspect expressions, expressions that are more akin to cultural 

pollution than art, it requires responsible and discreet execution. The 

costs our children must bear are too great. 

But we are not here today to debate the constitutional issue 

surrounding violent and explicit video games. We are here, my 

colleagues, to investigate some pretty simple and commonsense issues: 

whether parents are getting all the information they need and deserve to 

make decisions about the purchase of video and computer games, the 

process by which games are rated, and to what extent those games with 

“M”-rated or “Mature” content are policed at the retail level both on and 

off line. These are the elements of consumer protection required to 

protect our most vulnerable and valuable consumers, our children. 

This committee and this consumer protection subcommittee has a 

long and venerable record protecting children, whether it be from on-line 

pornography, indecency in broadcasting, or, in this case, from certain 

video games that have no place near children and should be banished to a 

secure adults-only location, and the video game equivalent of a red-light 

district. 
3

In addition, my colleagues, a new phenomenon of hidden code and 

mods is another disturbing development that came to light in the Grand 

Theft Auto case, and it involves the ability to modify an existing game’s 

underlying code with a downloadable program that can unlock hidden 

violence and sexually explicit content into the game. Such practices 

attempt to circumvent the rating process and again demonstrate the 

sophistication and stealth of the ways inappropriate content can be 

delivered to our children. 

This type of virtual reality, violence, and sexual content undermines 

the efforts of parents as responsible caregivers to their children. Parents 

should not be required to defend constantly against the increasing media 

and marketing onslaught of excessively violent and sexually explicit 

video and computer games. 

Media, marketing, and a delivery technology, computers, PDAs, and 

cell phones have become omnipresent in and outside the home. More 

needs to be done by the industries involved which have the money, they 

have the resources and expertise to better protect our children. Ratings 

need to be cleaner, clearer, and more universal. 

Hidden content and the use of mods to evade ratings need to be met 

with more severe penalties. Retail stores need to be more vigilant in how 

they verify the age of customers both on line and at the point of sale. 

Technology, though, can do a lot. For example, parental control 

technologies like those found on the Microsoft X-Box allowing playing 

consoles to read ratings and allow parents to prohibit certain content 

from being played even if the child has it in hand. And this is progress. 

I also very strongly urge the Federal Trade Commission to report to 

Congress on the Grand Theft Auto controversy as requested by 

congressional resolution last summer, and it should start getting tough 

with these companies like Take Two Interactive that flout the law and 

continue to exploit our kids with violence and hate. 

And finally, my colleagues, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand 

words. After Members’ opening statements, I would like to show some 

clips from Grand Theft Auto, the number one selling game of 2004, that 

have been meticulously edited to remove some of the more extreme 

sexual content, but still contain some very disturbing violent content. 

This should give us a sense of what constitutes a “Mature” or “M” rating 

under the ESRB system, and perhaps will make us wonder how bad 

things need to be to warrant an adults only or “AO” mark, a brand that 

would take this pollution out of mass-media and retail outlets that are 

frequented by our children and take the profit out of peddling violence 

and sex to our children. 
4

So I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. I know the 

sacrifice they had to make for their presence, and their views and their 

testimony are obviously appreciated. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good afternoon. The rise of computer and video games as mainstream 

entertainment has been nothing short of meteoric. U.S. computer and video game 

software sales reached almost $10.5 billion in 2005 - more than double since 1996. 

Worldwide, computer and video game sales have hit over $30 billion. And according to 

Price Waterhouse Coopers, the global revenue of video game companies could reach over 

$55 billion in 2008 -- easily surpassing that of the music industry at $33 billion. While it 

is a global business, the U.S. computer and video game industry continues to be the 

benchmark for innovation. 

The spectacular rise of the video game juggernaut is not hard to understand when 

you see the creativity, educational value, and fun the vast majority of games offer to 

gamers of every age - ESPECIALLY children, who are still the core market for this 

burgeoning industry. According to the Entertainment Software Association, games rated 

for children (age 17 and under) constitute over 80% of the titles rated by the 

Entertainment Software Rating Board or "ESRB." I, however, also note that the top 

selling game in 2004 was the now infamous Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which is 

rated by the ESRB as "M" for mature - indicating that the game's content is inappropriate 

for children under 17 years old. Grand Theft Auto sold 5.1 million units in 2004 and 

pushed out Madden NFL Football from the number one spot. Madden NFL Football was 

rated “E” for everyone by the ESRB -- suitable for children 6 years and older. 

Mature rated games continue to be top sellers and continue to push the limits of 

violent and sexually explicit content every year. Grand Theft Auto, which we will show 

a few clips from later, includes scenes that allow players to make drug deals, solicit 

prostitutes, gun down, bludgeon, and mutilate police and EMS workers, and as the finale, 

fly a plane into a skyscraper. I hardly call that fun, educational, or creative. This is not 

“just a game.” Building a video game around a premise based on very realistic, coldblooded assassinations of innocent bystanders and police - the same law enforcement 

community that stands guard outside the doors of this hearing room for our protection- is 

not entertainment. This sort of twisted, homicidal imagery is more akin to hate speech, 

not free speech. It targets those who are innocent, it stereotypes, it incites hate, and it 

breeds disrespect for those who serve to protect. 

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right, but when it involves very suspect 

expressions - expressions that are more akin to cultural pollution than art - it requires 

responsible and discrete execution. The costs our children must bear are too great. But 

we are not here today to debate the constitutional issues surrounding violent and explicit 

video games. We ARE here to investigate some pretty simple and common sense issues: 

whether parents are getting all the information they need and DESERVE to make 

decisions about the purchase of video and computer games, the process by which games 

are rated, and to what extent those games with "M"-rated or "mature" content are policed 

at the retail level- both on and off-line. These are the elements of consumer protection 

required to protect our most vulnerable and valuable consumers - our children. This 

Committee and this Consumer Protection Subcommittee has a long and venerable record 

protecting children -whether it be from on-line pornography, indecency in broadcasting, 

or in this case, from certain video games that have no place near children and should be 
5

banished to a secure, "adults-only" location – the video game equivalent of the red-light 

district. 

 In addition, the new phenomenon of hidden code and "mods" is another disturbing 

development that came to light in the Grand Theft Auto case and involves the ability to 

modify an existing game's underlying code with a downloadable program that can unlock 

hidden violent and sexually-explicit content in the game. Such practices attempt to 

circumvent the ratings process and again demonstrate the sophistication and stealth of the 

ways inappropriate content can be delivered to our children. 

This type of “virtual reality” violence and sexual content undermines the efforts of 

parents as responsible caregivers to their children. Parents should not be required to 

defend constantly against the increasing media and marketing onslaught of excessively 

violent and sexually explicit video and computer games. Media, marketing, and delivery 

technology (computers, PDAs, cell phones) have become omnipresent in and outside the 

home. More needs to be done by the industries involved, which have the money, 

resources, and expertise to better protect children. Ratings need to be clearer and more 

universal. Hidden content and the use of "mods" to evade ratings need to be met with 

more severe penalties. Retail stores need to be more vigilant in how they age verify 

customers - both online and at point of sale. Technology can do a lot. For example, 

parental control technologies, like those found on the Microsoft X-Box, allow playing 

consoles to read ratings and allow parents to prohibit certain content from being played 

even if a child has it in hand. This is progress. I also very strongly urge the FTC to 

report to Congress on the Grand Theft Auto controversy, as requested by congressional 

resolution last summer, and start getting tough with companies like Take Two Interactive 

that flout the law and continue to exploit our kids with violence and hate. 

And finally, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. After member 

opening statements, I would like to show some clips from Grand Theft Auto –the number 

one selling game of 2004-- that have been meticulously edited to remove some of the 

more extreme sexual content but still contain some very disturbing violent content. This 

should give us a sense of what constitutes a “mature” or "M" rating under the ESRB 

system and perhaps will make us wonder how bad things need to be to warrant an “adults 

only” or “AO” mark – a brand that would take this pollution out of our mass media and 

retail outlets frequented by our children and take the profit out of peddling violence and 

sex to our kids. I'd like to thank the witnesses before us today for their presence and 

views. Your testimony is greatly appreciated. 

Thank you. 

MR. STEARNS. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member Ms. 

Schakowsky. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns. Thank you for 

holding today’s hearing on the violent and explicit materials in video 

games. I appreciate the chance to further understanding how these 

games are marketed, sold, and what is being done to keep them out of the 

hands of children. 

While I am a very strong proponent of free speech, and there are 

many educational and wholesome games on the market, I am no fan of 

the games that glorify killing and other forms of violence, including rape. 

Games with such content are irresponsible and dangerous, and have no 

place in a civil society. 

The only thing that is as riling as those who make a business out of 

creating those deplorable games are those who make profit off of selling 
6

them to children. I am especially concerned about those who in their 

zeal to make a buck allow for massive loopholes that make it easy for 

those who are under 17 to get ahold of games rated “Mature” or above 

without their parents’ knowledge or consent. For instance, it is as easy 

as a click of the mouse to get “Mature”-rated video games on line from 

stores like Wal-Mart. All one needs to do to get their copy of Grand 

Theft Auto from Wal-Mart’s Web site is to check a box that certifies, 

quote, that the person ordering is older than 17. With 13-year-olds being 

issued credit cards or having ready access to their parents’ that age 

verification is a joke. For a so-called family-friendly store that won’t 

carry music with “parental advisories” on the label, that is quite a double 

standard. Tell me, how does selling violent game to minors fit with 

Wal-Mart’s claim that it is being responsible? 

But having lax protections in place to stop the children under 17 

years old from buying games rated “Mature” is not a unique 

phenomenon to on-line purchasing. According to the Federal Trade 

Commission, mystery shopping investigations that send 13 to 

16-year-olds unaccompanied into stores, 42 percent of these children 

were able to buy “M”-rated games. Sadly, this is an improvement from 

69 percent in 2003, but definitely no reason to celebrate it. And I look 

forward to your testimonies. 

I believe that for voluntary standards ratings to be effective, we have 

to make sure that they are enforced, from the raters of the games to the 

checkout counter. While I don’t condone these games, we need to make 

sure that parents are getting all the information they need, and that they 

have the chance to be involved in deciding what is appropriate for their 

children. 

I very much look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I want to 

learn more about how these games are rated, how they are marketed, and 

to whom; who is making profit from them, what retailers have to say 

about selling to under-aged children without parental approval, and what 

they are going to do about it. Thank you. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

I know recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton 

from Texas. 

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this 

hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from our distinguished list of 

witnesses, and we have several distinguished guests in the audience, and 

I hope at the appropriate time they might be introduced. 

But I am very glad that we are holding this hearing. I think it is an 

important hearing. I hope that the parents of America are paying close 

attention. Last year it was revealed that there was an explicit sexual 

scene hidden inside a video game called Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. 
7

It turns out that was one of the best-selling games of the year. This 

content was not disclosed to the industry’s rating board, so the game did 

not receive the adults-only rating that it deserved. So when we found out 

about it, we passed a resolution asking that the FTC look into the 

production and marketing of that particular game. That was about a year 

ago. The Federal Trade Commission has still not given a report formally 

to the Congress. Hopefully we will get some glimmer of what they 

found out in today’s hearing. But I think, given the sensitivity of the 

issue, it is not an acceptable practice by the FTC to respond in such a 

tardy fashion. 

We are going to see in a few minutes some clips of this game, the 

Grand Theft Auto game. What we are going to see will show policemen 

being killed, drug dealing, and drive-by shootings. Apparently that is 

acceptable. It is representative of the content of some mature-only 

games. There are lots of other scenes we are not going to see simply 

because this is a public hearing. 

It is true that “Mature” and “Adult-Only” games are a relatively 

small percentage of the games on the market, but unfortunately they 

appear to be some of the most popular games and are accounting for a 

disproportionately large percentage of total sales. 

I will have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a video game 

player. I have worked my way up to Civilization Four. I haven’t yet 

been able to beat it, but I at least understand the fundamentals of it. I 

think that game is an “E” game, which means that anybody can play it. 

Given the fact that the industry is booming and that more games are 

being purchased than ever before, over $10 billion last year, it is 

imperative, in my opinion, that parents are informed about the content of 

the games that their children are playing. I have two stepchildren that are 

teenagers, and they are playing video games; I have three grandchildren, 

two of which are playing video games; and I have an infant son who will 

soon within the next 2 to 3 years almost certainly be game-playing 

himself. 

So this is of a personal interest to me, and I am fed up with games 

like Grand Theft Auto being marketed under false pretenses. I have got 

no problem if it is an adults-only game and it is sold in the appropriate 

adults-only venue. If adults want to buy it, that is their privilege as 

Americans in a free society. But more violent and more sexually 

oriented games that are made available to the general public, in my 

opinion, is simply not acceptable. 

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I 

look forward to hearing the witnesses. And hopefully, on a bipartisanbasis, if legislation is needed to clean up this mess, I am sure that you 

will lead the way, and I will be one of your most stalwart soldiers. 
8

MR. STEARNS. I thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing. It is 

important that parents pay close attention to the entertainment that their children are 

watching and listening to, and this examination of the video game industry and its rating 

system is an important part of that process. 

Last year, controversy erupted when it was revealed that an explicit sexual scene 

was “hidden” inside a video game called Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which was one 

of the best-selling games of the year. This content was not disclosed to the industry’s 

rating board, and therefore the game did not receive the “Adults Only” rating it 

deserved—the rough equivalent of an NC-17 movie rating. Subsequently, we in 

Congress passed a resolution asking that the FTC look into the production and marketing 

of the game. As of now—almost a full year later—the Commission has not explained 

what they have done. This is simply unacceptable, and I hope that today the FTC will tell 

us specifically what the investigation has uncovered. 

In a few minutes, we will show a short compilation of clips from Grand Theft Auto

showing cop killing, drug dealing, and drive-by shootings. While it is representative of 

the content of some “Mature”-rated games, there are a lot of other scenes in these games 

that we simply cannot show in a public hearing. It is true that “Mature” and “Adult 

Only” games are a relatively small percentage of the games on the market, but they are 

some of the most popular games and account for a disproportionately large percentage of 

total sales. Given the fact that the industry is booming and more games are being 

purchased than ever before—over $10.5 billion in sales in 2005—it is imperative that 

parents are informed about the content in the games that their children are playing. 

The industry should be commended for developing a rating system voluntarily, and 

recent FTC studies have shown that retailers are doing a better job educating their 

customers and checking ID when selling more mature games. But not nearly enough has 

been done. The Grand Theft Auto debacle exposed a serious problem with the rating 

process, and many have argued that the ratings themselves are not appropriately defined. 

Consumers must have confidence in the ratings and those ratings must mean what they 

say. Also, last year’s study showed that unaccompanied teenagers were denied “Mrated” games only 58 percent of the time. While that is a huge increase from 2000, it is 

not nearly good enough. Retailers, large and small, and the industry itself must behave 

more responsibly. 

I understand that there have been efforts on the part of some state and local 

legislative bodies to regulate access to games. I also understand that all of these efforts 

have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Courts. The purpose of this hearing, 

however, is to have a comprehensive discussion about whether parents are getting the 

information they need to make educated choices for their children. I believe that is in the 

best interest of consumers AND the industry. 

I want to welcome Ms. Parnes of the Consumer Protection Bureau of the FTC, and 

thank her for coming in to discuss the Commission’s work in this area. I also want to 

thank the rest of our witnesses for their participation today, and I look forward to learning 

more about the industry, its ratings, and its marketing. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

MR. STEARNS. Ms. Baldwin. 
9

MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that 

you are holding this important and timely hearing on violent and sexually 

explicit video games and how we can best protect our children from 

them. 

It has been almost a year since the media first reported a secret 

sexually explicit minigame that was embedded in the game Grand Theft 

Auto San Andreas. Through installing a third-party program called Hot 

Coffee available on line, game players were able to access the embedded 

content, which was not originally disclosed to the Entertainment 

Software Rating Board, or ESRB. 

Subsequently, the Federal Trade Commission initiated an 

investigation into the game, and just last week published a settlement 

with the developers of Grand Theft Auto, Take Two Interactive, and 

Rockstar Games. The settlement, if made final following a 30-day 

comment period, would require the companies to disclose all playable or 

nonplayable content of a game relevant to the game’s rating, as well as 

requiring the companies not to misrepresent the rating or content 

descriptors for a game. The companies would be fined $11,000 per 

violation if they did not comply with reporting and game requirements. I 

believe these are constructive first steps in ensuring that video game 

developers operate in a socially responsible and consumer-friendly 

manner. 

I know the Entertainment Software Rating Board has been working 

hard to improve its rating system and aggressively working with retailers 

to reduce the sale or rental of “Mature”-rated games to minors without 

parental consent. I am especially heartened by the fact that game console 

manufacturers have provided password-protected parental control 

technology to prevent games with inappropriate ratings from being 

loaded onto their next-generation video game consoles. I applaud the 

industry for taking self-regulation seriously, because incidents such as 

the Hot Coffee minigame are not only bad for publicity, they are bad for 

business, and they are bad for our children. 

Nevertheless, we know that much more needs to be done. There are 

financial incentives for game makers not to be cooperative. Indeed, there 

is no question that in some instances a “Mature” rating for a game drives 

interest and sales of that game. While a game rated “Adult Only” or 

“AO” is automatically rejected by many retailers, it is not difficult to 

imagine that a company would downplay or misrepresent the content of a 

game to receive a “Mature” rating when, in fact, the game more closely 

resembles the violent and sexual content found in an “AO” game and 

should have received the “AO” rating. Which begs the question are the 

ESRB ratings truly based on content, or is the content of the game driven 

by ratings? And I hope our panelists will refer to that and speak to that. 
10

Finally, I want to emphasize that in ensuring video games are 

available to consumers in a responsible way, we must be careful not to 

trample on first amendment rights of the game creators. Indeed, every 

Federal court that has ruled on State laws prohibiting the sales of violent 

or sexually oriented video games to minors has found such statutes 

unconstitutional. And that is why I believe that self-regulation remains 

the best method in providing information to parents about the game’s 

content. For that same reason, it is all the more important that the video 

game rating system work effectively to provide accurate, objective 

information to parents. Ultimately, I believe it is up to the gaming 

industry to cultivate a more responsible culture in fulfilling their 

obligations not only to the rating board, but to the public in general. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for holding this important hearing. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Terry. 

MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing. As the father of three young boys, 11, 8, and 6 who are avid 

gamers, I am very concerned about the content included in the games 

that they and other young kids play. 

My wife and I really try to be vigilant. The first thing that we pay 

attention to is the rating on the cover. What we have found out is that 

even within the ratings, there seems to be a wide disparity, particularly in 

the “T” or teens ware, especially with something like a car race game. 

For example, we have kind of given carte blanche even with the “T” 

rating to buy racing games. And then we found out with one of the 

racing games that they actually get--or the purpose is to run from the 

cops, and you score how many points by the damage that you cause 

during the police chase, including hitting pedestrians, which I thought 

was pretty graphic. 

So we rely on these ratings. And I just want to get a feel for how 

tight these ratings should be in order to properly educate or provide the 

basis for whether or not a game is bought to parents. 

I am concerned that the merchandisers are selling “M”-rated video 

games to children, which an FTC recent survey recently documented. In 

my opinion, some of these games, the “M”-rated games, have pretty 

graphic violence of which, because the child is gaming, they are part of 

it. And I think that may actually be more dangerous to the child than 

watching a violent Hollywood movie on TV or at the movie theater. And 

then, of course, it scares the heck out of parents to hear about some of 

these Easter eggs or hidden scenes with graphic sex that wouldn’t even 

be part of the rating. And it is disturbing to me as a Member of Congress 

that the FTC, although requested by Congress, has not yet acted upon the 

most insidious of that example. 
11

Now, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and an 

exchange of ideas of how to further protect children and empower the 

parents in a gaming society. I yield back. 

MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady from Tennessee Mrs. Blackburn. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank 

the Chairmen of our subcommittee and also of our committee for holding 

the hearings on this issue. And to our witnesses, we appreciate you, and 

we appreciate your time for being with us today. 

I know that there is going to be a great deal of focus on the violence 

depicted in the video games and on the ESRB rating structure; however, 

I want to be certain that we also discuss the depiction of sexually explicit 

content in video games. Sadly, we know that this is a growing problem 

and one, I know, that is a cause of concern for many parents across the 

country and certainly for parents in my district. 

During hearings that we have held in other subcommittees, we 

discussed the alarming increase in the number of teenagers who are 

being exploited by sexual predators through the Internet. We have got a 

whole generation facing a threat parents have never had to deal with 

before, and a generation of kids being desensitized to aberrant sexual 

behavior. I think we would be remiss not to begin discussing how video 

game content is contributing to this problem. 

What I am reading and hearing from parents is that almost all 

“Adult-Only” video games have sexually explicit content. But it also has 

been brought to my attention that some video games rated “Mature” may 

also contain this sort of content. I would like the ESRB to confirm to 

this committee that no video games rated “Mature” contained sexual 

content. And in this, I am referring to indirect reference--not to indirect 

reference, but to suggestive sexual scenes and acts. 

I know the industry has opposed age verification for violence in 

video games, claiming that such requirements are subject to overly vague 

standards, but I would like to hear the industry’s position on requiring 

age verification only for video games that may have sexually explicit 

content. 

One other aspect I would like the industry to comment on is the 

abundance of freeware on the Internet, and whether ESRB rates this 

software. 

And a final comment. I want to hear from the rating agency on 

whether they consider religious overtones a factor in their ratings. I 

bring this up because of the recent MPAA rating of PG on a film solely 

because of a religious aspect, and putting this issue on par with violence, 

nudity, and foul language. 

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield 

the balance of my time. 
12

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Murphy. 

MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today not only as 

a member of this committee, a Member of Congress, but also as a 

psychologist who has practiced in this field for many years working with 

children. I wish I could submit this as part of the record, but it is my 

only copy left, the book I wrote on The Angry Child. But in that I have 

worked extensively with children with a propensity towards violent and 

aggressive behavior. 

Researchers consistently told me as a psychologist that children who 

witness real-life violence even passively experience two and a half times 

greater risk for psychological and behavior problems. Children who then 

are involved in an interactive way with video games have an increased 

tendency to act aggressively, with a decreased tendency to use calmer 

and more thoughtful approaches. When they witness acts of violence, 

this leads kids to believe violence is more prevalent and acceptable than 

it is, and the viewer response becomes dulled, which therefore requires 

increased violence to perk up the sales of items. From TV and games, 

we, in summary, have increased aggressive behavior, increased levels of 

arousal, and increased aggression-related thoughts and feelings. 

Now, the thing about video games that I find particularly interesting 

is anywhere you look in the industry or the literature of psychological 

and educational science, we have your highly interactive and realistic 

games. The games reward violent behavior and children involved in 

repetitive behaviors. Now, learning theory has told us that activity and 

rewards and repetition is how you get children to learn. It is amazing to 

me as I see studies that are quoted by the gaming industry ignore that. 

I think what we need to start off with here is understanding that 

clearly what children are exposed to affects their behavior. If that was 

not the case, then television and video games and even parenting itself 

and school would have no impact. The fact is it does. And so the issues 

here are not, it seems to me, the impact of games or the ratings, but 

perhaps the ease of purchase and the ease by which children can break 

through any sort of system that is set up there, whether the ratings are 

themselves--and sometimes we have heard in previous testimony they 

are false--or whether it is parents not watching over them. 

Now, I am not one to mandate a nanny state, where the Federal 

government or State governments say some things can be made and 

some things cannot out there. What I do think is important is that we 

have to understand this: No government has done a good job at 

mandating common sense and litigating compassion or legislating 

intelligence. What we have to make sure is that parents themselves are 

the main factors with that. 
13

I always hope that hearings like this somehow help to increase 

people’s awareness, but in having worked with literally thousands of 

children with pretty serious problems, unfortunately, that is not the case. 

And so my hope is in this hearing today one of the things we hear from 

the people from the gaming industry of what role they wish to play 

aggressively with the billions of money that they make on these items to 

help educate parents and children to understand there is a relationship, 

and they need to be responsible about that. 

I yield back. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Mr. Pitts. 

MR. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this important 

hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for sharing your expertise with 

us today. Anyone who has young children or young grandchildren has 

seen how influential video images can be on young, impressionable 

minds. They are very influenced as young children, and they learn a lot 

from video images. And I think you should be commended, the industry, 

for what you are trying to do in setting up a system of self-regulation 

ratings. 

And parents who monitor what their kids are exposed to clearly have 

tools to regulate what comes in their home, but that leaves a lot of kids 

unprotected. A sizeable percentage of kids live in homes where parents 

don’t monitor what they are playing. I think it is safe to say that, by and 

large, these are kids who are already disadvantaged and at risk, and I 

would be interested in what the industry is doing to protect these 

children. 

I am also interested in the effect video games have on kids’ 

behaviors. I think it is safe to say that a wealthy kid from the suburbs 

can play Grand Theft Auto or similar games without turning to a life of 

crime, but a poor kid who lives in a neighborhood where people really do 

steal cars or deal drugs or shoot cops might not be so fortunate. And I 

should add that this isn’t a hypothetical question. Grand Theft Auto is 

one of the best-selling video games in America. There is almost 

certainly a child somewhere in America who is going to be hurt by this 

game. Maybe his dad is in jail, or his big brother is already down on the 

corner dealing drugs. Maybe he has just fallen in with the wrong crowd. 

But this game could be all it takes to nudge him on to the wrong side of 

the fence. 

And although I am a defender of the first amendment, don’t you 

think that the industry has a moral responsibility to think about at-risk 

kids and impressionable minds before producing some of the stuff that 

we are going to witness today? 
14

So I hope you will address some of these questions in the hearing 

today. And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling it. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns. 

MR. TOWNS. No opening prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I 

would like to place it in record. 

MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this timely hearing. 

 Today we will hear a great deal about what is wrong with the video game industry. 

We will see violent images and hear about how video games are corrupting children and 

giving them bad ideas. Essentially, we will be hearing a lot about the content that is seen 

in about 15 percent of video games 

 In contrast, I would like to stress the benefits and qualities that are found within the 

games that make up the other 85 percent. Further, I would like to commend the industry 

for addressing the public's complaints about content and doing its best to alleviate our 

concerns. Additionally, I look forward to hearing from the FTC and await Ms. Parnes' 

explanation of its study. 

 With all of the distractions and negativity our young people face on TV, the internet,

and in movies, I am thankful that there are a large number of positive and educational 

video games available to capture their attention. From "Battlefield 1942" and its stunning 

World War II scenes and maps, to the wide variety of simulation games that enable a 

player to plan the layout of his or her own house or of an entire city, games provide our 

children with amazing opportunities to learn about life, solve problems, and make tough 

decisions. I personally enjoy selecting Tiger's clubs while playing the U.S. Open in Tiger 

Woods PGA Tour 2006. ( Sadly, it's the closest I'll ever come to the real experience!). 

 The availability of adult video games to minors is certainly a concern, and I hope to 

hear some new ideas from our witnesses. I was pleased to read the FTC's findings on 

improvements made by retailers in this regard, and am confident that the ESRB will 

continue its oversight. I lookk forward to our witnesses. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

I'm again pleased to see the video game industry represented here today, as it 

continues to provide consumers with innovative technology and products. That said, I'd 

like to stress that the protections in the DMCA have helped companies bring their 

products and intellectual property to market, and we should do our best to preserve their 

stream of commerce. America's content companies continue to entertain and amaze all of 

us, and the movie industry at large has aggressively and innovatively embraced the digital 

marketplace. Movie and television studios are not "holding back" their content, as some 

would have you believe, but rather are exercising due diligence and caution in not 

licensing a business model that exacerbates piracy.

In an age when consumers want new products and recent movies in their hands as 

quickly as possible, we must be extremely careful when reviewing the protections and 

guidelines that govern the distribution of content. I feel that the entertainment industry 

has made great strides, and I cite Mr. Feehery's ("FEARIE") testimony in that regard. He 

lists a number of recent digital content deals cut by motion picture companies to 

distribute their works online, on IPTV services, for the i-Pod, on peer-to-peer services, 

and through innovative uses of the air waves. These efforts, I believe, are steps in the 
15

right direction. I was intrigued by Mr. Denney's testimony, in which he cites century-old 

examples of one or another content industry opposing various new technologies. 

However, it appears to me that a look at more recent history shows the movie industry 

has embraced and driven the adoption of the DVD player and other consumer electronic 

devices. Therefore, I look forward to Mr. Denney's comments here today and hearing his 

rationale.

Finally, I would like to quickly mention that the video industry is not alone in 

fighting piracy and in need of protection. We must be just as diligent in coming to the 

aid of those who operate in the audio realm, as our music artists are also under siege from 

rampant piracy and improper file sharing. I look forward to the second session of this 

two-part hearing, when we will concentrate on audio protections in greater detail.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Radanovich. 

MR. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact 

that you are holding this hearing. 

I, too, am a father of an 8-year-old, and he loves playing video 

games. He plays anything from sports to action figures and adventures. 

He is in the “E” for “Everybody” category. He is not getting out of that 

until he is 30 years old, by the way, because we are going to make sure 

of that. 

His parents, my wife and I, are constantly faced with the challenge of 

determining what is appropriate for our son to be exposed to. We face 

the same pressures that all the other parents face, with an impressionable 

child who sees the latest exciting advertisement for the newest game or 

game system, and he wants to have it. 

These are the difficulties we face, and one of the things that parents 

rely on critically is the way the games are rated. That is why I am deeply 

concerned with the developments last year with the Grand Theft Auto 

game. The game was given a “Mature” rating, but was later discovered 

to contain hidden content of which the ratings board was unaware. I 

understand that this situation was addressed, and the rating was up to 

adults only, but it illustrates the possibility of ratings being inaccurate. 

These are ratings that parents rely on, and it is our responsibility to make 

sure that they are reliable and dependable. 

I am also concerned with the marketing of games with “Mature” 

content. These can be presented in a way that is very appealing to young 

children. And I look forward to hearing about what the FTC is doing to 

address deceptive marketing within the industry. 

This hearing provides us with an excellent opportunity to learn more 

about the video game industry and its rating system. I am interested in 

how that process works, how the ratings are enforced at the retail level, 

and how effective the ratings are in informing parents about the games 

children are playing. 

I understand the ratings board, the industry, and retailers have all 

made efforts to increase accountability for games content. This is seen 
16

through increasing difficulty for minors to purchase games and a new 

technology that prevents games of a certain rating from being played. 

The ESA in particular should be commended for its efforts with the 

ratings board; however, we need to look and see how effective this 

system is in practice and determine what is the best way to ensure that 

our children are protected. 

We have come a long way from playing Pong on the old Atari, and 

right now my wife and I still have a high level of control over what my 

8-year-old can play, but he is young, and as children get older, that level 

of hands-on control can change. We need to ensure that the rating 

system is accurate and that it is enforced so that parents can rely on it to 

keep games from ending up in the hands of those not old enough or 

mature enough to play them. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 

forward to your testimony and a productive hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. Upton. 

MR. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement 

for the record that I want to put in, but I want to say a couple things. 

First of all, I appreciate having the hearing today and seeing my old 

friend and neighbor Warren Buckleitner here today as well. 

I would like to think that I have been an outspoken watchdog on this 

industry. I have got two kids, I am a gamer myself. I was an expert in 

Pong. That was a good game. But I have got to tell you, as a dad with 

two teenagers, I understand the rights of the first amendment and folks 

that can handle some of these games, and obviously some that cannot. 

And we in this committee took action on the House floor last year on 

Grand Theft Auto with the rating that they had, and I have got to tell you, 

if I had had that game in my house, I would have been outraged. Maybe 

I would have hired a lawyer to go after some of these people for some of 

the garbage that they put out, but we didn’t. We passed a law instead, 

passed a resolution asking the FTC to go after them. 

And I guess I thought that the FTC had a few more teeth than they 

apparently have. I have not read the consent agreement that just showed 

up in my office just this week almost a year after we in the House passed 

a very strong bipartisan resolution led by Mr. Dingell, Mr. Barton, 

Mr. Markey, and myself, and Mr. Stearns. And I am not at all happy 

with the consent agreement. In essence, as I understand it, there are no 

consequences, none, for the rating that they had before, and merely an 

acknowledgement that if they mislabel or deceive folks in the future, that 

there will be a potential fine of up to $11,000 a day. I would have liked 

to have thought that they would have been able to be fined for millions of 
17

dollars for the trash that they put out across this country with the label 

that they got. 

As a responsible parent, we have the duty to look after our kids, and 

when they go into a Best Buy or a Target or a Wal-Mart, parents often 

look at what that rating is. And as Chairman of the Telecommunications 

Subcommittee, we have had hearings on those ratings with the video 

industry and with the music industry, and if those labels aren’t accurate, 

parents can’t make a decision as to whether their kids ought to participate 

in those games or listen to that type of music. And to find at least on the 

surface of what we saw with the Grand Theft Auto, I just can’t tell you 

how disappointed and angry I am that their actions in essence aren’t even 

a slap on the wrist, nothing, for the most popular video game that was 

sold in America. 

So I look forward to this hearing. I look forward to looking at 

legislation--if the FTC doesn’t have the ability to go after them when 

they deliberately deceive them, I look forward to seeing what we could 

do to change that. And I obviously am out of time, and I look forward to 

participating. 

And I thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Fred Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have been an outspoken watchdog against 

explicit video games. I introduced H Res 376, which passed the House overwhelmingly 

last July, to require the FTC to look into this situation with the game Grand Theft Auto: 

San Andreas because I was appalled to hear about the game having a back door to porn 

embedded in its files. 

As a parent of two teenagers, I know firsthand that parental involvement is the most 

important line of defense in determining the type of content suitable for children, and the 

ratings system empowers parents to do just that. Unfortunately, the incident involving 

Rockstar Games has severely degraded the integrity of the ratings system. How can 

parents trust a system in which game makers do an end-run around the process to deliver 

pornographic material to our kids? 

I appreciated the ESRB’s swift action in investigating the matter and revoking the M 

rating and ensuring that any further sales of “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” were 

under an AO rating. But this action should have never been necessary had Rockstar 

Games complied with industry standards from the outset. 

This kind of material would have certainly earned it an “Adults Only” Rating rather 

than the “Mature” rating that it has been marketing. I cannot imagine how a good player 

in the video game industry could make an honest mistake of something like that, so you 

have to wonder just what they are trying to do. I look forward to hearing from the 

industry about their commitment to rating games accurately and retailers about their 

initiatives to make sure that Adult Only games don’t get into the wrong hands. 

I am especially interested in hearing what Warren Buckleitner has to say about this 

because he and I grew up together in St. Joseph, Michigan. I can only assume that his 

Midwestern common sense and good judgment will help clarify what is really going on in 
18

the video industry and what may or may not be needed to combat bad video games and 

bad purchase choices. 

 I hope the FTC plans to walk through the outcome of the case that they opened 

against Take Two and Rock Star Games, the makers of Grand Theft Auto and the 

outcome of this case. I have to be honest, I was hoping for something a little harsher 

especially after waiting so many months to see the result of this investigation, although I 

am not sure that the FTC really has the power to punish a bad player to the degree that I 

would like. 

 The video game industry has gone into great detail in defining their ratings, (I 

have them right here) but I want parents to feel confident that the labeling of the video 

games they allow their kids to play is reliable and that a bad actors do not get away with 

deceptions like this.

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

It is my pleasure to welcome a Member who is not a member of this 

subcommittee, Mr. Matheson, who has a bill, I think it is H.R. 5345, and 

I welcome him for a short opening prepared statement, and welcome. 

MR. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a written 

prepared statement I will submit for the record. But I just want to thank 

you, Chairman Stearns, and Ranking Member Schakowsky for giving me 

a chance to sit in on your hearing. I am so pleased you are holding this 

hearing. 

There are a number of bills that have been introduced by different 

Members. You have the capability to assess all those different bills and 

try to work through the good ideas from all of them. I think I have one 

point of view that might be helpful, and I just look forward to 

participating in the hearing, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

 [Additional statements submitted for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Good afternoon and welcome. I would like to start off by thanking Chairman 

Stearns and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding today’s hearing regarding 

“Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children”. 

As the father of two teenagers, a seventeen year old and a fourteen year old, I know 

first hand the thoughts and worries that many parents of teenagers in this day and age are 

facing. 

Just like any parent, I want the best opportunities and experiences for my children. 

And just like any parent, I want to be able to keep up with all aspects of my children’s 

lives, including the situations and content they are exposed to. 

With that said I, along with many other parents, strive to do the best we can but 

know that there are areas where all parents can continue to learn more so as to best help 

their children be exposed to constructive experiences. 

In this day and age, technology moves at an extreme pace, which can yield both the 

positive and the negative. Advanced technology allows greater opportunities and access 

to information, education, and entertainment. 
19

Yet, the ever changing world of technology sometimes can get ahead of a parent’s 

ability to adequately track and comprehend each new option that is presented to our 

children. 

I am aware of the existing ratings board in place that continues to monitor and rate 

video games that are sold in the market to persons of all ages. I am pleased that such a 

ratings system exists and look forward to learning more about the specifics of this 

system. 

I also look forward to further discussion on ways that we may be able to better 

utilize this system, as well as ways we can better educate parents on the content of the 

games that they purchase or allow their children to play. 

I believe that all members in the room and witnesses present today are here to see 

the same guiding principle accomplished, and that is finding ways that we can best 

protect our children and help them experience and learn from positive components of our 

ever changing world of technology and entertainment. 

Once again, I thank today’s subcommittee for holding this hearing and thank all the 

witnesses who have taken time to come here today to help elaborate on this important 

issue. I look forward to the upcoming discussions. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

With that, I don’t think we have any more opening statements, and 

so we will move to our panel. Before we do, we have an edited video 

that we intend to show. I caution, it is Grand Theft Auto and other 

videos. It does have some explicit material. We have put this on the 

front of this edited version, but we would like to show that to you. And I 

understand some of you on the panel have videos of your own that you 

want to show, so we will obviously allow you to do that, but I thought 

we would give before your opening statements start sort of an overview 

of what we are talking about. And so with that we will show the video. 

[Whereupon a videotape was played.] 

MR. STEARNS. I think that concludes the video clips of that. We 

will start on our panel. 

Lydia Parnes is Director of Bureau of Consumer Protection at the 

Federal Trade Commission; Mr. Gary Severson, Senior Vice President of 

merchandising, Wal-Mart Stores; Mr. Douglas Lowenstein is President 

of the Entertainment Software Association; Ms. Patricia E. Vance, 

President, Entertainment Software Rating Board; Dr. Kimberly 

Thompson, Director, Kids Risk Project, Associate Professor of Risk and 

Analysis and Decision Science at Harvard; Dr. Warren Buckleitner, 

Editor, Children’s Technology Review; and, lastly, Dr. David Walsh, 

President, National Institute on Media and the Family. 

With that, I welcome all of you. And we will start with my left. 

Ms. Parnes, welcome, for your opening prepared statement. 

STATEMENTS OF LYDIA PARNES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION; GARY SEVERSON, SENIOR VICE 
20

PRESIDENT, MERCHANDISING, WAL-MART STORES, 

INC.; DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, 

ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION; 

PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT 

SOFTWARE RATING BOARD; KIMBERLY M. 

THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, KIDS RISK PROJECT, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF RISK ANALYSIS AND 

DECISION SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH POLICY 

AND MANAGEMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; WARREN 

BUCKLEITNER, PH.D., EDITOR, CHILDREN’S 

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW; AND DAVID WALSH, PH.D., 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE 

FAMILY 

MS. PARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky. I am Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer 

Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Commission’s role 

in monitoring the marketing of violent video games to children under 17. 

As the committee is aware, in response to concerns from Congress 

and the public, the Commission has maintained an active program of 

reviewing and reporting on the advertising and marketing of violent 

entertainment products including movies, video games, and music. The 

courts have found that the expressive content in these products is 

protected speech under the First Amendment, leaving a very narrow 

range of permissible government involvement with their advertising and 

marketing. We believe, however, that we can play an important role in 

encouraging industry to maintain active self-regulatory programs and in 

holding the entertainment industry to its commitments. 

The Commission’s first report on the marketing of violent 

entertainment products was issued in September 2000. Since then, the 

Commission has issued four follow-up reports. 

We currently have several ongoing efforts directed to marketing of 

violent entertainment products. We are developing a survey to determine 

whether parents are familiar with and use the ESRB’s video game rating 

system. We are currently conducting a new undercover test shopping 

program to determine whether retailers abide by age restrictions on the 

marketing of video games and other products. For video games, past 

results show that retailers are headed in the right direction, but there is 

still substantial room for improvement. And, as was noted in our most 

recent shop, 42 percent of teens were still able to buy “M”-rated games. 

We are actively monitoring advertising practices to determine 

compliance with industry standards for the disclosure of rating 
21

information, and we are collecting from the industry itself the 

information necessary to issue a new report on the state of 

self-regulation. We hope to release this report by the end of the year. 

In addition, as the committee is aware, in response to a congressional 

resolution, the Commission recently completed an investigation into the 

undisclosed explicit content in the video game Grand Theft Auto San 

Andreas. This is obviously a matter of serious concern to us, the public, 

and the Congress. Parents must be able to rely on the accuracy of the 

industry rating system. 

The staff at the FTC conducted a detailed inquiry, reviewing 

thousands of internal documents, deposing company officials, 

interviewing other potential witnesses, and consulting with outside 

experts. At the conclusion of the investigation, staff believed that the 

game’s developers bore responsibility for what occurred, having created 

the content that was ultimately made playable by the mod program 

known as Hot Coffee. Accordingly, last week the Commission accepted 

for public comment a settlement with the game’s developers that seeks to 

ensure that such events not happen again. 

Several members this afternoon have expressed concern that the FTC 

has failed to report back to Congress on the results of our investigation. 

The congressional resolution directed the FTC to conduct this 

investigation and take action, which we did, but of course we would be 

happy to submit written material to the committee to follow up on this. 

Mr. Upton, you also expressed concern about the adequacy of our 

order to address this conduct. First, I want to assure you that I 

understand these concerns, and I share them, and I thank you for your 

longstanding support of the Commission, and especially for our work in 

this area. But the fact is simply the Commission does not have the 

statutory authority to impose civil penalties for Rockstar’s conduct. 

Despite that, we have obtained a strong order in this case. It prohibits 

any future misrepresentations of video game ratings, requires the filing 

of compliance reports, and subjects the company to the risk of very 

substantial civil penalties if they violate this order. 

Finally, Rockstar’s misconduct did have significant financial 

repercussions for the company. Rockstar has publicly reported to its 

investors that it spent $25 million recalling and relabeling games as a 

result of the ESRB’s revocation of Grand Theft Auto’s rating after 

disclosure of the hidden content. 

Finally, the Commission remains active in consumer education. 

Most recently, we updated our consumer education material and Web 

site to make sure that parents understand that game content, especially in 

PC games, can be modified or changed through mods that are widely 

available on the Internet. 
22

In conclusion, as the industry continues to produce games with 

increasingly explicit content, industry self-regulatory efforts become 

even more important. The Commission will continue to monitor closely 

industry developments and will initiate law enforcement actions, like our 

case challenging the marketing of San Andreas, whenever appropriate. 

Thank you. And I look forward to responding to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Lydia Parnes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYDIA PARNES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

I. Introduction

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ms. Schakowsky, I am Lydia Parnes, Director of 

the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Commission’s monitoring of the 

marketing of electronic games (commonly known as video games) to children under 17 

and the serious concerns that some parents have about the marketing of some of these 

games.1 Our monitoring plays an important role in encouraging industry to maintain 

active self-regulatory programs and in keeping the entertainment industry to its 

commitments. 

The Commission’s involvement in this area dates back to 1999 with the revelation 

that the teen-aged shooters at Columbine High School had been infatuated with extremely 

violent movies, music, and video games. This event led to Congressional and 

Presidential requests that the Commission investigate and report back on the practices of 

the movie, video game, and music recording industries with respect to the marketing of 

violent entertainment to children under 17. Since then, the Commission has issued five 

reports on the marketing of violent entertainment products. These reports have examined 

voluntary guidelines and industry codes that govern the placement of advertising for 

violent Restricted (R)-rated movies, Mature (M)-rated games, and Explicit-Content 

Labeled recordings in media popular with teens, and require the disclosure of rating and 

labeling information in advertising and on product packaging. Given that the focus of 

today’s hearing is video games, I will limit most of my remarks to that industry, except to 

point out relevant comparisons.2

 Over the years, the FTC reports have documented progress by the video game industry in 

limiting advertisements for M-rated games in popular teen media. The FTC also has 

found that the video game industry nearly always provides rating information in 

advertising. 

Despite this progress, there remain a number of concerns relating to video games 

and how they are marketed. First and foremost, there is the question of the usefulness of 

the rating system widely used by the industry. It is critically important that parents know 

 

1

 The views expressed in this written statement represent the views of the Commission. My 

oral statement and responses to questions you may have are my own and are not necessarily those of 

the Commission or any individual Commissioner. 

2

 The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government’s principal consumer protection 

agency. Congress has directed the Commission, under the FTC Act, to take action against “unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices” in almost all sectors of the economy and to promote vigorous 

competition in the marketplace. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). With the exception of certain industries and 

activities, the FTC Act provides the Commission with broad investigative and enforcement authority 

over entities engaged in, or whose business affects, commerce. The FTC Act also authorizes the 

Commission to conduct studies and collect information, and, in the public interest, to publish reports 

on the information it obtains. 15 U.S.C. §§ 46(b) and (f). 
23

about and use the Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”)3 ratings and content 

descriptors4

 when choosing games for their children. Content descriptors – such as Blood 

& Gore, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Violence – which can be found 

on the back of the game box, help inform parents about the game’s content. 

In addition, it is important that parents understand that game content, especially on 

PC games, can be modified or changed through modifications or “mods” that are widely 

available on the Internet. Often these modifications are developed by third-party game 

enthusiasts with no connection to the video game companies. If downloaded and made 

part of a game, they can add additional content, ranging from simple additions like a 

different color car used in a street scene, to superimposing new textures or skins on a 

figure in a game. Many of the mods would likely be of little concern to parents, but 

others add nudity or enhance the violence or depictions of blood in a game. In light of 

the easy availability of these “mods,” the Commission, in July 2005, issued a Consumer 

Alert on the video game rating system that highlights for parents the fact that content can 

be downloaded from the Internet that has not been evaluated by the ESRB and may make 

a game’s content more explicit than the rating indicates.5

Similarly, parents need to be concerned about game developers leaving otherwise 

unplayable content on a game disc that is later made playable by patches or programs 

developed by third-party modders. The Commission recently investigated this very issue, 

culminating last week in an announcement that the Commission had accepted for public 

comment a consent agreement relating to alleged deception in the marketing of Grand 

Theft Auto: San Andreas and the release on the Internet of the so-called “Hot-Coffee” 

program that, if downloaded and installed, made playable a sex mini-game.6

The Commission also has expressed concerns regarding how readily children can 

buy M-rated video games in stores. Although retailers selling video games have steadily 

improved their record of denying under-age children access to M-rated games, a 

significant percentage of children sent in as undercover shoppers are still able to buy 

these games. Moreover, children are often exposed to advertising for these products. As 

is the case with the movie and music industries, existing voluntary guidelines for the 

video game industry still would permit M-rated ad placements in media that are very 

 

3

 As indicated on its website, the ESRB is a “self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the 

Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”). The ESRB independently assigns computer and video 

game content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible 

online privacy practices for the interactive entertainment software industry.” 

http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp. 

4

 The ESRB ratings have two parts: 1) rating symbols that suggest what age group the game is 

appropriate for; and 2) content descriptors that indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a 

particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern. The ESRB system consists of the following 

rating symbols: EC (Early Childhood), E (Everyone), E10+ (Everyone 10 and older), T (Teen), M 

(Mature 17+), and AO (Adults Only 18+). There are more than thirty different content descriptors, 

including Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Lyrics, Mature Humor, Mild Violence, Nudity, Sexual 

Themes, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs, and Violence. See ESRB Game 

Ratings & Descriptor Guide, available at http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp. 5

 See FTC Consumer Alert: Video Games: Reading the Ratings on Games People Play (July 

2005), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/videoalrt.htm. The Consumer Alert 

also explains how to decode ESRB’s descriptors and provides parents with certain tips, such as 

“Adults who are concerned about the content of certain games may want to check them out by 

renting and playing them before giving the nod to youngsters in their household” and that parents 

can use the ESRB’s website to “enter the name of a game to see its rating and the descriptions of its 

content.” This alert and other information useful for parents on the ratings systems for video games, 

movie and music are also available on the Commission’s webpage on “entertainment ratings,” 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/ratings.htm. 6 See Makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Settle FTC Charges 

FTC Alleged Companies Game Content Claims Deceptive, available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/06/grandtheftauto.htm. The comment period ends on July 10, 2006. 
24

popular with large numbers of teens. In the past, all three industries have placed ads for 

M-rated, R-rated, or labeled products on television programs that are, according to 

Nielsen rankings, among the most popular shows watched by teens, yet still fall within 

industry placement guidelines. 

Because the expressive content in video games has been considered protected 

speech under the First Amendment,7

 there is a very narrow range of permissible 

government involvement with their advertising and marketing. As the industry continues 

to produce games with increasingly explicit content, it becomes even more incumbent 

upon industry to enforce and enhance its self-regulatory guidelines governing marketing, 

and upon retailers to implement and enforce policies restricting children’s access to 

Mature-rated games. 

II. The Commission’s Studies

A. Scope of the Studies

As stated earlier, the Commission has issued five reports on the self-regulatory and 

marketing practices concerning violent entertainment by the movie, music, and video 

game industries.8

 In the course of preparing these reports, the Commission staff 

requested information from the principal industry trade associations, as well as from 

major motion picture studios, music recording companies, and video game companies.9 

In addition, the Commission staff contacted interested government agencies, medical 

associations, academics, and parent and consumer advocacy groups.10 The Commission 

collected information from consumers through publicly available surveys and polls and 

also designed and conducted its own research. In addition, the Commission has 

conducted four “mystery” shopper surveys of retail stores and movie theaters in an 

attempt to see if unaccompanied children could purchase or gain access to products 

labeled as inappropriate or warranting parental guidance. Finally, the Commission staff 

reviewed Internet sites to study how they are used to market and provide direct access to 

rated or labeled products. 

B. Findings of the Commission’s First Report

 In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission issued its first report entitled, 

Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry 

Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries 

(“September 2000 Report”).

11 That report found that the three entertainment industries 

had engaged in widespread marketing of violent movies, music, and video games to 

 

7 E.g., Interactive Digital Software Ass’n v. St. Louis County, Mo., 329 F.3d 954, 957-58 (8th 

Cir. 2003); James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 696 (6th Cir. 2002). 8

 The Department of Justice provided the FTC with substantial funding and technical assistance 

to enable the FTC to collect and analyze public and non-public information about the industries 

advertising and marketing policies and procedures, and to prepare the Commission’s written 

Reports. The analysis and conclusions contained in these reports are those of the FTC. 9

 The Commission received information from numerous individual companies, as well as the 

Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”), the National Association of Theatre Owners 

(“NATO”), the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”), the National Association of 

Recording Merchandisers (“NARM”), the Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”), the 

Video Software Dealers Association (“VSDA”), the Interactive Digital Software Association 

(“IDSA”), the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (“IEMA”), and the American 

Amusement Machine Association (“AAMA”). 

10 Among those organizations were the American Academy of Pediatrics, American 

Psychological Association, Center on Media Education, Center on Media and Public Affairs, 

Children Now, Commercial Alert, The Lion & Lamb Project, Mediascope, National Institute on 

Media and the Family, National PTA, and Parents’ Music Resource Center. 11 The Commission’s September 2000 Report is available online at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/vioreport.pdf. 
25

children that was inconsistent with the cautionary messages of their own parental 

advisories and that undermined parents’ attempts to make informed decisions about their 

children’s exposure to violent content. In addition, the Commission found that 

advertisements for such products frequently failed to contain rating information. 

The Commission also conducted national telephone surveys of parents and children 

on their familiarity and use of the ratings and parental advisories. With respect to video 

games, our survey in 2000 found that only 61% of parents were aware of the ESRB 

system, and that 45% of those parents reported that they rarely or never used the ESRB 

system.12 

Finally, the Commission reported on the results of an undercover mystery shop by 

unaccompanied teens, aged between 13 and 16, of retailers and movie theaters. In our 

2000 survey, 85% of the unaccompanied young teens bought M-rated video games and 

parental advisory-labeled music recordings and 46% purchased tickets for an R-rated 

movie.13 

The September 2000 Report recommended that all three industries – with respect to 

products that they themselves rate or label with age restrictions or parental advisories due 

to their violent content – enhance their self-regulatory efforts by: 1) establishing or 

expanding codes that prohibit target marketing these products to children and imposing 

sanctions for violations; 2) increasing compliance at the retail level; and 3) increasing 

parental understanding of the ratings and labels. 

C. Findings of the Commission’s Follow-Up Reports in 2001

In response to Congressional requests, the FTC released follow-up reports in April 

and December 2001.14 Both reports examined the entertainment industry’s practices with 

regard to marketing violent entertainment products to children. These reports noted 

progress by the video game industry, as well as the movie industry, in providing clear and 

conspicuous disclosure of rating information in advertising, as well as new efforts by 

both industries to limit advertising for M-rated games and R-rated movies in popular teen 

media venues. The reports also found that the music industry showed virtually no change 

in its placement of parental advisory-labeled music ads since the September 2000 Report. 

The results of the Commission’s second undercover shopper survey were included 

in the December 2001 Report. The video game retailers showed modest improvement 

from the results in the Commission’s undercover survey in 2000, with 78% of the 

unaccompanied young teens able to buy the product; the movie theaters showed no 

statistically significant change, with 48% able to buy a ticket to an R-rated movie as 

compared to 46% in 2000. The music industry had the worst results, with 90% of 

shoppers able to buy music recordings with an explicit-content label, not a statistically 

significant change from the 85% result obtained in the Commission’s 2000 shop. 

 

12 See September 2000 Report, Appendix F at 8, 

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/appendicesviorpt.pdf. Appendix F also contains a detailed 

discussion of the underlying methodology and findings. 13 See id. 14 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Six-Month Follow-up Review of Industry 

Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (“April 2001 

Report”). The Commission’s April 2001 Report is available online at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/violence010423.pdf. Marketing Violent Entertainment to 

Children: A One-Year Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music 

Recording & Electronic Game Industries (“December 2001 Report”). The Commission’s December 

2001 Report is available online at:http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/12/violencereport1.pdf. 
26

D. Findings of the Commission’s June 2002 Report

The Commission’s next report, issued in June 2002,15 showed continued progress by 

the movie and video game industries and improvement by the music industry in including 

rating information in advertising that would help parents identify material that may be 

inappropriate for their children. In the case of video games, the Commission found 

nearly universal compliance with ESRB standards limiting the advertising of M-rated 

games in media where children constitute a certain percentage of the audience (35% for 

television and 45% for print media). Nonetheless, the Commission found that some 

industry members had placed advertisements for M-rated games on television shows 

popular with teens, and in youth-oriented game-enthusiast magazines. As the 

Commission noted in its December 2001 Report, the industry’s anti-targeting standards 

diminished – but did not eliminate – advertisements during programs mainly popular with 

teens. 

E. 2003 Workshop on Industry Marketing Practices

In October 2003, the Commission held a public workshop on industry marketing and 

retail sales practices. At the workshop, representatives from consumer and parents’ 

groups, as well as the motion picture, video game, and music recording industries’ major 

trade and retailer associations discussed and debated the state of self-regulation in each of 

these industries. A summary of the workshop appears in the Commission’s July 2004 

report.16 Significantly, one positive outgrowth of that workshop was an announcement 

by the trade group representing video game retailers that they would step up their efforts 

to restrict sales of M-rated games to children, and by the end of 2004 would have in place 

an enhanced system to deter such sales.17 Based upon the results of the Commission’s 

most recent mystery shop (see Section II. G., infra), it appears that game retailer 

members have adopted policies to restrict such sales but need to do more to ensure that 

such policies are being enforced. 

F. Findings of the Commission’s July 2004 Report

The Commission’s July 2004 Report found substantial, but not universal, 

compliance with ESRB standards governing ad placements and found that industry 

participants generally were prominently disclosing rating information in advertising and 

on product packaging. The report further found that ads for M-rated games continued to 

appear in game enthusiast magazines popular with teens, and that Teen (T)-rated games 

were advertised in media popular with pre-teens (children under 13). The Commission 

recommended that the video game industry, as well as the movie and music industries, 

improve their efforts to avoid advertising restricted or labeled products in venues popular 

with under-17 audiences. The report also noted that the game industry could improve its 

efforts to disclose rating information, by including content descriptors in TV ads and on 

the front of game packages. 

The report discussed the results of a mystery shopper survey of retailers conducted 

on the Commission’s behalf in 2003. This survey found that 69% of young teen shoppers 

(age 13–16) were able to buy Mature-rated games, reflecting some improvement from 

 

15 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Twenty-One Month Follow-up Review of 

Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (“June 

2002 Report”). The Commission’s June 2002 Report is available online at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/mvecrpt0206.pdf. 16 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Fourth Follow-up Review of Industry 

Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (“July 2004 

Report”). The Commission’s July 2004 Report is available online at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/07/040708kidsviolencerpt.pdf. 17 See Major Retailers Announce New Campaign to Enforce Video Game Rating System, 

available at http://releases.usnewswire.com/printing.asp?id=24172 (Dec. 8, 2003). 
27

earlier undercover shopping surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001. However, the survey 

also revealed that retailers still far too often were selling such games to children. The 

report encouraged retailers to do a better job disclosing ratings and reasons for ratings in 

advertising, and to more widely implement and enforce sales policies restricting 

children’s access to restricted or labeled entertainment media, and, in particular, R-rated 

DVDs and homes videos, music with a parental advisory, and M-rated games. 

G. Latest Mystery Shop Results

On March 30 of this year, the Commission released the results of its latest 

nationwide undercover shop of video game stores.18 The undercover shop saw a 

substantial decrease in the number of M-Rated video games sold to unaccompanied 

children, particularly by large retailers. Forty-two percent of the secret shoppers – 

children between the ages of 13 and 16 – who attempted to buy an M-rated video game 

without a parent were able to purchase one, compared to 69% of the shoppers in 2003. 

Notably, large retailers performed better - 35% of the secret shoppers were able to buy 

the M-rated games. While these results are headed in the right direction, there is still 

substantial room for improvement. The Commission staff currently is conducting another 

undercover shop to test whether children under age 17 are able to buy tickets to R-rated 

films at movie theaters, R-rated movies on DVD, explicit-content labeled music 

recordings, and M-rated video games. 

III. The Commission’s Ongoing Activities

A. Survey Research and Ad Monitoring

The Commission staff is currently conducting research for a new report on 

entertainment industry practices. Among other things, the Commission staff will be 

surveying consumers on the video game rating system. The surveys are a follow-up to 

the Commission’s surveys in 2000 on consumers’ familiarity with and use of the ESRB 

video game rating system. Because parents’ knowledge of and ability to use the rating 

system is a key factor, the Commission intends to survey both parents and children to 

find out, among other things, whether parental participation in the selection and purchase 

of video games has changed since the 2000 survey, whether parental knowledge and use 

of the ESRB system has changed, and what parents’ level of agreement is with the ESRB 

ratings for games they have personally encountered through purchase or play with their 

children. The Commission plans to survey 1,000 parents who have one or more children, 

aged eight to 16, who play video games or personal computer games.19 The FTC will 

also survey 500 children aged eight to 16 who play video or personal computer games. 

The Commission staff continues to monitor the industry’s advertising practices for 

disclosure of rating information and for the placement of ads for M-rated games, R-rated 

movies, and music with a parental advisory in media popular with children. As part of 

this monitoring, the FTC surfs web sites to study the disclosure of ratings information 

and methods used to preclude the sale of restricted or labeled products to children under 

17. 

The Commission plans to release a report near the end of this year summarizing the 

results of these additional surveys and monitoring activities. 

 

18 See Undercover Shop Finds Decrease in Sales of M-Rated Video Games to Children, available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/03/videogameshop.htm. 19 On March 30, the FTC published the second of two Paperwork Reduction Act notices seeking 

public comment on proposed consumer surveys on the video game rating system. See 71 Fed. Reg. 

16155 (Mar. 30, 2006); 70 Fed. Reg. 56703 (Sep. 28, 2005). 
28

B. Collection of Media Violence Complaints 

On March 17, 2004, the Commission announced an expansion of its consumer 

complaint handling system to categorize and track complaints about media violence, 

including complaints about the advertising, marketing, and sale of violent movies, video 

games, and music.20 To make it easier for consumers to file a complaint, the 

Commission’s home page - www.FTC.gov - contains a link to the complaint form. The 

expanded complaint system, implemented in response to Congressional directives, 

enables the Commission to track consumer complaints about media violence and identify 

issues of particular concern to consumers. To date, the Commission has received over 

1,200 complaints.21

C. Law Enforcement Activities

The Commission has completed its investigation into the marketing of the video 

game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, having reviewed tens of thousands of documents 

and the deposition testimony of numerous company officials. As noted earlier, the 

Commission has accepted for public comment a consent agreement with the developers 

of San Andreas to address alleged deception in the marketing of that game.22 

The ESRB originally rated Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas M (Mature 17+), 

indicating that the game has content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. 

As part of the rating, the ESRB had assigned the game the following content descriptors: 

Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Use of 

Drugs. 

In July 2005, after media reports of a widely available “mod,” the ESRB found that 

the game discs for the originally released PC, PlayStation 2, and Xbox versions of San 

Andreas contained unused nude female textures (“skins”) and a sexually explicit minigame that had been edited out of game play but was embedded in wrapped form in the 

game’s computer code23. Users of the originally released PC version of the game could 

access this content by downloading and installing a third-party program called “Hot 

Coffee.” Later, PlayStation 2 and Xbox users were able to access the same content by 

taking certain affirmative steps, such as installing special software and/or hardware 

accessories on their game consoles. 

According to the ESRB, its initial rating of San Andreas was seriously undermined 

by the existence of the undisclosed and highly pertinent content on the final game discs, 

compounded by the broad distribution of the Hot Coffee program.24 The ESRB therefore 

re-rated the game as AO (Adults Only 18+), indicating that the game has content that 

should only be played by persons 18 and older. The ESRB also assigned the game an 

additional content descriptor for nudity. 

Major retailers, most of whom have policies not to sell AO-rated games, promptly 

removed the original versions of San Andreas from their store shelves. Take-Two 

Interactive, Inc., the game’s publisher, agreed to offer retailers the option of either restickering existing inventory with an AO (Adults Only 18+) rating or exchanging all 

unsold inventory for new, M-rated versions of the game with the Hot Coffee content 

 

20 See FTC to Accept Complaints about Media Violence (Mar. 17, 2004), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/mediaviolence.htm. 21 About 60% of these complaints grew out of a coordinated campaign that encouraged parents 

to complain about the marketing of a toy to young children that was based on a violent TV program. 22 A “censor flag” that preceded the sex mini-game script code on the game disc acted as a kind 

of wrapper for that content. When installed, the Hot Coffee program changed that censor flag from a 

1 to a 0 at the relevant point in the script code, effectively unwrapping the sex mini-game. 

24 See ESRB Concludes Investigation into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; Revokes M (Mature) 

Rating (July 20, 2005), available at http://www.esrb.org/about/news/7202005.jsp. 
29

removed.25 Take-Two also agreed to make a downloadable patch available to all 

consumers who had previously purchased the PC version of the game, which would make 

the Hot Coffee program inoperable. 

The ESRB clarified its rules to clearly require all game companies to disclose any 

pertinent content that might impact the rating contained on the game discs sold to the 

public, even if that content is not intended to be accessed during game play. The ESRB 

also has stated publicly that it intends to increase the fines available for companies who 

fail to disclose pertinent content during the rating process to as much as $1,000,000.26 

Undisclosed explicit content in video games is obviously a matter of serious 

concern. Parents must be able to rely on the accuracy of the industry rating system. 

Practices, whether by game manufacturers or a third party, that undermine the integrity of 

this system need to be addressed. 

In the instance of San Andreas, the Commission believes that its developers bear 

responsibility for what occurred, having created the content that was ultimately made 

playable by the “Hot Coffee” program.27 Accordingly, the Commission last week 

published a complaint and accepted for public comment a settlement with Take-Two 

Interactive and Rockstar Games that seeks to ensure that such events not happen again. 

The agreement, if made final following a 30-day comment period, would require the 

companies to make disclosures in their advertising and marketing whenever they include 

content on a game, whether playable or not, that would likely affect the rating for the 

game, unless they have disclosed that content to the ESRB or other applicable rating 

authority. In addition, the agreement includes a requirement that the companies not 

misrepresent the rating or content descriptors for a game, and implement and maintain a 

system reasonably designed to ensure that all of the content of a game is considered when 

the companies prepare a submission for the ESRB or other rating authority.28 

The Commission believes that last weeks’s action complements the steps the ESRB 

has already taken. Importantly, it also makes clear that companies owe an obligation to 

the public independent of their obligations to the ESRB, not to misrepresent the content 

that might become accessible on a video game. 

IV. Conclusion

The Commission’s follow-up reports have documented progress by the video game 

industry in complying with and improving its self-regulatory policies restricting ad 

placements and requiring rating information in advertising. More remains to be done. 

Because of First Amendment and other issues, the Commission continues to support 

private sector initiatives by industry and individual companies to implement the 

suggestions mentioned above. Nonetheless, the Commission will continue to monitor 

 

25 Take-Two reported that it incurred $24.5 million in costs associated with returns of San 

Andreas as a result of the re-rating. See Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Annual Report (Form 

10-K), at 24 n.6 (Jan. 31, 2006). 

26 However, these increased fines are not yet in effect. 

27 The July 25, 2005, resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives asking the Commission to 

investigate the marketing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas requested the FTC to determine if the 

companies had intentionally deceived the ESRB. H. Res. 376 (July 25, 2006). The Commission’s 

published complaint contains no allegation that the companies intentionally misled the ESRB as to 

the content of the game when they submitted the game for a rating. Indeed, the relatively unpolished 

production qualities of the enabled mini-game, as well as technical bugs that arose in the game when 

the first version of the “Hot Coffee” program was released, show that the companies had abandoned 

development of that content before finishing it. 

28 A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a 

law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of 

law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of 

$11,000.
30

closely developments in the area and will initiate actions, such as the case challenging the 

marketing of San Andreas, when appropriate. 

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Severson.

MR. SEVERSON. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

and distinguished members of the committee, Wal-Mart thanks you for 

holding this hearing today. We support actions to prevent children from 

obtaining violent and explicit video games, and inform and educate 

parents regarding the same. We are prepared to work with you on this 

issue. 

I am Gary Severson, Senior Vice President and General Merchandise 

Manager for Wal-Mart, and I oversee the purchases of toys, electronics, 

entertainment, computers, and photos for Wal-Mart U.S. stores. 

Wal-Mart is pleased to be a part of this process. As a responsible 

retailer, we take voluntary steps and proactively work to prevent children 

from obtaining “Mature” and “Adult”-rated video games, and to inform 

parents about video game content before a purchase is made. 

All the video games we carry are rated by the Entertainment 

Software Ratings Board. ESRB is responsible for rating the content of 

the games. The rating system is designed to help customers choose the 

right games for their families. Parents report that they find the rating 

system helpful and mostly credible. 

First, while Wal-Mart represents a good portion of the video game 

sales in the United States, we feel it important to point out that we 

choose not to sell any video game with an “Adult-Only” rating. 

Second, we have a process in place to help ensure that only 

customers who are 17 or older can purchase video games rated “Mature.” 

Wal-Mart associates are not permitted to sell “Mature” video games to 

any person under the age of 17 unless that person is accompanied by a 

parent or guardian. All “Mature”-rated are prompted at the register to 

check the age of the customer. The associate is then required to request 

that the customer provide a current valid form of identification. If they 

cannot provide that form of identification, we must politely decline the 

sale. All of our associates are taught and trained in the selling of 

“Mature” video games. 

All of our stores have the ESRB rating system posted in the 

electronics area next to the video game product. We recently took steps 

to improve beyond what we had done in the appearance and visibility of 

those signs. We also use our in-store television network to run public 

service announcements about the rating system, and we display the rating 

system when we advertise video games in newspaper circulars. 

Compliance with these guidelines is crucial in helping us to be one 

of the leaders among retailers in terms of compliance with the rating 

system. Wal-Mart continually works to improve its performance 
31

regarding the sale of video games. We focus on education and ratings 

enforcement, and are working on new ideas to educate parents about 

ratings. 

It is important to note that we believe self-regulation regarding 

compliance with the ESRB rating system in this sector works. There has 

been dramatic improvement among retailers in restricting access to 

inappropriate content by minors. Specific actions that led to this 

improvement include installation of digital prompting technology, clear 

signage at the retail sales floor describing the rating system, and the 

dissemination and utilization of documents outlining training for sales 

clerks. 

We have systems and procedures in place to timely deal with any 

issues that may arise in the sale of video games. For example, the recent 

video game titled Oblivion was originally rated “Teen”, but was changed 

to “Mature” when it was determined to contain mature content. As soon 

as Wal-Mart was notified of the change, we immediately pulled the video 

games off the floor, moved them to the back room, waited for relabeling, 

changed our register prompts in our systems, and put the product back 

out on the floor when all systems were in place. Further, within minutes 

of receiving notice from the ESRB regarding the hidden content in the 

much-discussed Grand Theft Auto today, Wal-Mart stopped all sales of 

the video game, pulled the video games from the retail sales floor, and 

returned them to the supplier. 

We also have activities and affiliations with other organizations that 

are making a difference. We are a member of Healthy Media Healthy 

Children, which is an umbrella organization for Pause, Parent, Play, 

which is a campaign to empower parents to make decisions about what 

their kids watch, hear, and play from television and movies to video 

games and music. Further, Wal-Mart is a member of the Entertainment 

Merchants Association, the EMA. It is committed to parental 

empowerment programs. As a family-friendly, responsible retailer, we 

have been focused on being involved in ways to make sure children do 

not purchase inappropriately rated video games and in educating parents 

regarding video game content for almost 5 years. We will always work 

on ways to improve the process. 

Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak on behalf of 

Wal-Mart regarding this important topic. We look forward to working 

with you effectively and constructively to address this issue. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Gary Severson follows:] 
32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY SEVERSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MERCHANDISING,

WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

 Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. thanks the Committee for its work on this important issue and 

for holding this hearing today. We support actions taken to prevent children from 

obtaining violent and explicit video games and to inform and educate parents regarding 

the same. We are prepared to work with you to avoid the sale of this material to children 

and to make certain parents understand what they and their children are purchasing. 

Background

My name is Gary Severson. I am the Senior Vice President and General 

Merchandise Manager for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. I oversee the purchase of toys, 

electronics, video games, computers, music and movies. I joined Wal-Mart in 1994 as a 

Buyer. In 1995, I was promoted to Merchandise Manager and was appointed to Vice 

President and Divisional Merchandise Manager in 1997. In August of 2002, I was 

promoted to Senior Vice President and General Merchandise Manager. Prior to joining 

Wal-Mart, for eight years, I served in Merchandising for Venture Stores, a division of the 

May Company. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree from Brigham Young University in 

Provo, Utah. 

Wal-Mart is based in Bentonville, Arkansas. Our company employs approximately 

1.3 million Associates from all 50 states and approximately 1.8 million Associates 

worldwide. Each week over 176 million customers worldwide choose to shop at WalMart, which we feel reflects the success of our dedication to providing Everyday Low 

Prices to our customers. Wal-Mart does not just operate stores, clubs, and distribution 

centers in communities; we take a proactive stance in community involvement on a 

number of issues. 

Purpose of Hearing and Wal-Mart’s Role

 As we understand it, there are several purposes of this hearing including: (1) to 

learn about best practices utilized by the private sector to prevent the sale of violent and 

explicit video games to children and to inform parents about video game content prior to 

purchase; (2) to explore potential ways in which to best prevent the sale of violent and 

explicit video games to children and to inform parents about video game content prior to 

purchase. With this understanding, Wal-Mart is eager to share its information and 

experiences. 

Wal-Mart’s policies and procedures

Wal-Mart is pleased to be a part of this process. We make every effort to be a 

responsible retailer and take the role very seriously. We proactively work to prevent 

children from obtaining mature and adult rated video games as well as to inform parents 

about video game content prior to purchase. Wal-Mart has taken and continues to take 

voluntary steps to address these issues. 

All of the video games Wal-Mart carries are rated by the Entertainment Software 

Ratings Board (ESRB). ESRB is responsible for rating the content of interactive 

entertainment software or video games. The rating system is designed to help customers 

choose the right games for their families. Parent customers report that they find the 

rating system helpful and credible. According to an ESRB nationwide survey of parents, 

parents agree with the ESRB ratings assigned 82 percent of the time. This is an 

important statistic to Wal-Mart as we look to our customers for guidance. 

First, while Wal-Mart represents about 24 percent of the video game sales in the 

United States, we feel it is important to point out that we choose not to carry or sell any 
33

video game with an “Adult” rating and in 2005 we sold significantly more “Everyone” 

and “Teen” rated video games than we did “Mature” rated video games. Second, we 

have a process in place to help ensure that only customers who are 17 years of age or 

older can purchase video games rated “Mature.” Wal-Mart Associates are not permitted 

to sell “Mature” rated video games to any person under the age of 17 years of age, unless 

the person is accompanied by a parent or guardian. 

Specifically, we have many checkpoints in place to prevent the sale of “Mature” 

rated video games to anyone under the age of 17 years of age. All video games have an 

ESRB rating symbol on the front of the product. Thus, a “Mature” rating symbol will 

indicate to the Associate that the customer is required to be 17 years of age or older to 

purchase the item. Further, we have programmed all of our cash registers to prompt 

Associates to check the age of customers attempting to purchase “Mature” rated video 

games. Upon seeing the prompt, the Associate is required to request that the customer 

provide a valid, current, Government issued form of identification. If the customer 

cannot provide a valid, current, Government issued form of identification, the Associate 

must politely decline the sale. 

Further, salaried managers, Customer Service Managers and Home Entertainment 

Department Managers are required to ensure that all Associates know and understand the 

requirements for selling “Mature” rated video games. 

In addition to monitoring actual sales, Wal-Mart is committed to making sure 

customers are satisfied with their purchases by ensuring they understand what they are 

taking home. To this end, it is policy that all stores have the ESRB rating information 

posted in the electronics area to help customers make informed decisions about the video 

and software games they are purchasing. Recently, we took steps to improve the 

appearance and visibility of the ESRB rating signs. Further, we use our in-store 

television network to run Public Service Announcements to educate our customers about 

the ESRB ratings system. When we advertise video games in newspaper circulars we 

display the ESRB ratings guide. Finally, Wal-Mart Associates play an important role in 

this process by explaining the rating system and making sure customers are aware of it. 

Compliance with all these guidelines is critical in terms of providing excellent 

customer service, reducing returns from “surprised” customers, and enhancing customer 

trust. Wal-Mart is one of the leaders among retailers in terms of its compliance with the 

ESRB ratings and in taking steps to make sure children do not purchase video games 

inappropriately rated for their age. 

Wal-Mart continually works to improve its performance regarding the sale of video 

games. We are focused on education and ratings enforcement and are working on new 

ideas to educate parents about ratings in our advertisements in in-store television 

monitors. Further, we are working with our operations team to train all our associates 

regarding ratings. 

Wal-Mart does not limit its vigilance to in-store sales. Walmart.com is one of the 

leaders in the industry in terms of warning signals and prompts that we use throughout 

the interface and checkout flow. A purchaser of a “Mature” rated video game on 

Walmart.com must check a box confirming they are in fact 17 years old or older before 

they can proceed to our online checkout and purchase a “Mature” rated video game. 

It is important to note that self-regulation regarding the ESRB ratings and 

compliance in the retail sector has worked and continues to work. There has been a 

dramatic improvement among retailers in restricting access to inappropriate content by 

minors. Specific actions that have led to this improvement include the installation of 

digital prompting technology that requires identification at the cash register, the 

installation of clear signage on the retail sales floor describing the ratings system, and the 

dissemination and utilization of manuals and documents outlining training for sales 

clerks. 
34

WAL-MART’S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE 

It is important to point out Wal-Mart has policies and procedures in place as well as 

capabilities which allow it to react to the sometimes quickly changing environment in 

retail sales. If for example, there is a sudden need to pull a particular video game from 

our stores, we have the ability to implement that process within minutes. 

For example, recently a video game titled “Oblivion” was originally rated “Teen” 

but was re-rated “Mature” when it was determined to contain mature material. As soon 

as Wal-Mart was notified of the rating change, we immediately pulled the video games 

from the floor in all our stores, moved them to the backroom, re-stickered them with a 

“Mature” rating symbol, and changed our register prompts accordingly before placing the 

video games back on the floor. Further, within minutes of receiving notice from the 

ESRB regarding the hidden content and new “Adult” rating for a recent version of 

“Grand Theft Auto,” Wal-Mart stopped all sales of the video game, pulled all the video 

games from the retail sales floor and returned them to the supplier. 

 These examples illustrate Wal-Mart’s ability to timely address any issue that may 

arise in the sale of video games. This in turn, improves our ability to remain a 

responsible retailer providing excellent customer service, protection to children buying 

video games and information to parents regarding the content of video games. 

ADDITIONAL WAL-MART ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS THAT ARE MAKING A 

DIFFERENCE 

 As a responsible retailer and member of communities across the United States, WalMart participates in a variety of activities designed to educate and empower parents to 

make decisions about what their kids play, watch and hear. 

 Wal-Mart is a member of Healthy Media Healthy Children which is the umbrella 

organization for PauseParentPlay, a campaign designed to empower parents to make 

decisions about what their kids watch, hear and play from television and movies to video 

games and music. PauseParentPlay is the first comprehensive, nationwide movement 

that joins the entertainment industry with leaders from private businesses, Congress and 

family groups. PauseParentPlay was created about four years ago when several corporate 

CEOs and members of Congress started discussing a private sector initiative aimed at 

helping parents gauge which media is appropriate for their children. Wal-Mart was a 

founding member motivated by its belief that parents should be armed with tools to make 

the best media choices for their children. U.S. Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA), Joseph 

Lieberman (D-CT), John Ensign (R-NV), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) serve as advisors to 

this bipartisan group. 

 PauseParentPlay continually takes steps to reach parents through outlets they use 

and see everyday such as placing advertisements in magazines and placing displays in 

retail stores and other venues. The advertisements and displays direct the parents to the 

website, www.PauseParentPlay.org where they will find information and tutorials about 

media tools in an easy-to-use format. The site guides parents through available tools 

such as the v-chip and age and content-based ratings for video games, television, movies 

and music. The site provides busy parents with easy access to all the information they 

need to make informed choices about what their kids play, watch and hear. 

 Further, Wal-Mart is a member of the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA). 

The EMA (formerly known as the IEMA and VSDA) is committed to parental 

empowerment programs. It began in October 1997, when one of EMA’s predecessor 

organizations endorsed the Motion Picture Association of America rating system for 

motion pictures and encouraged its members to enforce the ratings. Among other things, 

the EMA facilitates the adoption of voluntary ratings enforcement by retailers, 

encourages retailers to educate parents about video game ratings through various forms of 

in-store signage and notification, and provides parents with information how to make the 

right entertainment choices for their families. The EMA’s public education components 
35

include media outreach, a ratings awareness public service announcement that runs on the 

in-store monitors of more than 10,000 retail establishments, and a website that contains 

the public service announcement, guidelines for parents, a PowerPoint presentation about 

the ratings and labeling systems, and other ratings and labeling information. 

Conclusion

Wal-Mart seeks excellence and responsibility in everything we do. We constantly 

strive to improve our business processes and to enrich the communities in which we are 

located. With regard to preventing the sale of violent and explicit video games to 

children and educating parents about the content of video games, we believe our model 

works. We abide by the ESRB ratings and do everything possible to prevent children 

from obtaining inappropriate video games and to inform parents about video game 

content. 

Thank you for your time in allowing me to speak on behalf of Wal-Mart on this very 

important topic. We look forward to working with you to effectively and constructively 

address this issue. 
36

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Lowenstein. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I 

appreciate your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to putting together a broad 

and fair-minded panel, as you always do. 

I was going to focus a little bit on some of the economic issues 

around this industry, but you, more eloquently than I could, in your 

opening prepared statement touched on how important and how big this 
37

industry is today and how important it has become to the U.S. economy. 

So let me dive right into some of the issues. 

I have raised two daughters, and I understand the concerns that give 

rise to these hearings about the content of some video games. Some of 

the entertainment my daughters consumed when they were growing up 

certainly gave me my share of worries. But I have to tell you, in the end 

I think they were better for having a diverse array of content whether I 

approved of it all or not. 

I also want to say that I lost an uncle to gun violence years ago, so I 

have a personal sense of how powerful and how painful it is to be 

exposed to violence in a profoundly personal way. 

Monitoring what our kids see in this society is not easy. The video 

game industry is part of a larger puzzle. In our industry, the average 

game player now is 33 years old. They are not kids. And that means, 

just like books, just like movies, just like music, just like television, just 

like painting, just like any other form of artistic expression, we produce 

content for people of all tastes and interests. Some of it is not my cup of 

tea. Some of it, I think, is extraordinarily powerful and compelling 

entertainment. Some of it clearly is not appropriate for all audiences. 

But context does matter. And as some of you have mentioned, 85 

percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated as appropriate for persons 

under 17. 

I think it is important to bear in mind when we talk about this 

subsection of games that give rise to this hearing, it is not the dominant 

portion of this market. Yes, some of them are big sellers, undeniably. 

And it is impossible to avoid that reality. But let us keep this in some 

kind of context. And even if there is room for disagreement amongst the 

ratings, and I am sure there is, the fact is that almost everyone who has 

looked at this rating system finds overwhelming agreement with the 

ratings the overwhelming portion of the time. 

This brings me back to the central question then, which is, what do 

you do? And I think our industry has tried from start to finish to create a 

self-regulatory system in partnership with retailers that helps parents 

control, both give them the choices and give them the way to control the 

entertainment that comes into the home. 

You will hear a great deal about the Entertainment Software Rating 

Board. I am not going to spend too much time on that. I will note that 

the Chicago Tribune wrote in January of this year that the video game 

industry’s rating system is more detailed than those of the movie and 

music industries. We are proud of that. There is much more information 

about the content of video games than there is about any other media. It 

may not be perfect, but we have really made a commitment to 

empowering parents. 
38

Second, we work with retailers, as Gary Severson has said, to create 

effective self-regulatory systems. On the FTC data about enforcement, I 

think it is important to note 83 percent of all games are sold through just 

five retailers. And if you look at the mass merchants, which the FTC 

did, enforcement is up to 65 percent. That is up from 30 percent in just a 

year. That is a pretty impressive gross. It is not where it should be. It is 

not as high as I would like it to be. 

But let us put that in context; if you look at movies, which have 69 

percent effective enforcement of R-rated movies, so video games 

retailers are essentially doing as good a job keeping kids from buying 

“M”-rated games as movie theaters are at keeping kids from getting into 

R-rated movies, and four times better, I might add, than retailers are 

doing keeping kids from buying albums with parental warning labels or 

DVDs rated R or NC 17. 

Finally, the latest video game consoles have parental control 

technologies. That has been touched on. The X-Box 360 has it on the 

market now, the PlayStation 3, and the Nintendo, we will have it when 

they come out in the fall. And I think this is a very powerful tool for 

parents. 

Now, this hearing is focused, understandably, on violent games, and 

we have already seen a tape of Grand Theft Auto, but defining this 

industry based on its most controversial titles, it would be like defining 

the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and 

Natural Born Killers; or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent 

and the Dixie Chicks. 

And I would like, with the Chairman’s indulgence, to show a brief 

clip of what I think is a representative sample of games that this industry 

produces. It is going to look a little bit different from some of the other 

clips you have seen, but every one of these games we will show is one of 

the top-selling video games of the last year. If we could show the clip. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon a video clip is played.] 

MR. STEARNS. We will probably need you to wrap it up before we 

all get mesmerized here. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. The point of this video is to simply suggest to 

you that there is an enormous variety of games. The Age of Empires you 

just saw, a historically accurate game about the building of the new 

world; the Sims, the most popular computer game of all time, 50 percent 

of the people playing it are women. There was a lot that we offer as an 

industry. And no ratings system, no parental control technology will 

work unless the parent is engaged. But if the parent wants to be 

informed, if the parent wants to be there, then the tools are there. I thank 

you for the opportunity to be here. 
39

 [The prepared statement of Douglas Lowenstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT 

SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. The Entertainment Software 

Association represents the $10.3 billion US computer and video game software industry, 

the fastest growing entertainment industry in the world today. 

Let me put this industry in some context. Worldwide, the video game industry 

produced $25 billion in revenue in 2004, with Price Waterhouse Coopers forecasting that 

it will hit $55 billion in revenue by 2009, far surpassing the global music industry total of 

$34 billion. A new study prepared for the ESA by U.S. economists Bob Crandall of The 

Brookings Institution and J. Gregory Sidak of Criterion Economics reports that the video 

game industry generated $18 billion in direct and indirect economic impacts in 2004 

alone, concluding: 

“The video game industry has grown into a vibrant business that creates thousands 

of jobs, improves the performance of other industries, and spurs technological 

advancement. Clearly, this is an industry about a lot more than fun and games. It 

is a serious business that improves training, efficiency, and productivity in a variety 

of industries and has led to innovation in other high-technology industries. Video 

games play an important role in maintaining U.S. leadership in information 

technology, which is critical to the future success of the U.S. economy.” 

Indeed, that scanner used by your doctor to diagnose medical problems may be 

powered by a chip developed for the PlayStation 3 video game system; the demand for 

high speed broadband and high speed wireless networks so critical to the next era of 

technological progress is being driven in part by consumers appetite for online and 

mobile games; and kids seeking careers in video game design are being drawn to math 

and science education, fulfilling a goal of policymakers on both sides of the aisle. 

So as this Subcommittee talks about video games, I hope the dialogue can be 

broader than the stereotypical focus on video game violence; to be sure, it is a fair topic 

for discussion, but it should occur with an understanding that this industry uniquely fuses 

together advanced technology and boundless creativity, and is central to building the 

innovation and knowledge economy elected officials and economists so often talk about. 

I have attached the Executive Summary of the Crandall-Sidak Report “Video Games: 

Serious Business for America’s Economy” for your information. 

I have raised two daughters and I understand the concerns that give rise to these 

hearings about the content of some video games. As a parent, it was a monumental 

challenge to, on the one hand protect my kids from things that we felt were not 

appropriate, either morally, ethically, or developmentally, while on the other hand 

ensuring that they were exposed to a full range of ideas and expression, including that 

which we might personally find distasteful. My kids saw movies, read books, watched 

TV, saw things on the news, heard political speeches and, yes, played video games that 

caused me more than my share of worry. Some of this I was able to prevent, some of it I 

could not control. But in the end, I think they are better for it. As Federal Judge Richard 

Posner said in striking down an effort by the City of Indianapolis to ban violent arcade 

games, “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions 

and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped 

to cope with the world as we know it.” 
40

As parents, we know that video games are among a wide range of cultural, social, 

emotional, psychological and political factors that shape our children. And they cannot 

be viewed in isolation from all these other forces swirling around a child. And if Judge 

Posner is right that it is neither wise nor possible to shield our kids from everything and 

anything we might find objectionable, we must find a way to empower parents to make 

good video game choices for their families. 

I don’t pretend it is easy. We are well past the days when parents merely had to sort 

through Mario and Pac Man. You might be surprised to learn that the average age of 

people playing games is not 12, or 15, or even 20. It is 33 years old. And even when we 

eliminate people who mainly play solitaire, the average age remains in the late twenties. 

So like other forms of entertainment, we serve a mass market audience; the core 

market for video games is between 18-35 years old. And while there are many video 

games that provide a stunning and enriching entertainment and educational experience 

with little objectionable content, there are also some that are clearly not appropriate for 

younger children. That’s another way video games are just like books, movies, music, 

TV, paintings and other forms of artistic expression. We make games for all ages and 

tastes; some are brilliant, others, to put it politely, do not ennoble our culture. 

But defining the video game industry based on its most controversial titles would be 

like showing clips of Kill Bill, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers and 

calling it representative of the film industry, or playing only the music of Eminem, 50 

Cent, and The Dixie Chicks and calling it representative of the music industry, or 

defining Congress by the behavior of its least ethical member. 

In fact, 85% of all games sold in 2005 were rated appropriate for persons under 17, 

and only 15% were rated Mature. That means there is a vast array of quality 

entertainment ranging from Nintendogs to Madden Football, from World of Warcraft to 

Super Mario, from Star Wars Battlefront to Shrek 2, from The Sponge Bob Movie to 

Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon, from The Sims to Roller Coaster Tycoon, from Call of Duty 

to Gran Turismo. This expanding variety of offerings explains not only why games are 

played by people of all ages, but why one-third of game players are female, and one half 

of all those who play online games are adult women. 

This brings me back to the central question: how can parents do their jobs when it 

comes to video games? 

We have tried to create a “cradle-to-crave” self regulatory system, in partnership 

with retailers, which gives parents both choice and control over the games their kids play. 

How the tools are used and the controls exercised is ultimately the responsibility of 

parents. 

• First, as you will hear in great detail from Patricia Vance, President of the 

Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), we have created a superior 

rating, advertising, and enforcement system to give parents accurate 

information about the age appropriateness and content of every game sold in 

the United States. The Chicago Tribune wrote in January, 2007, that “The 

video game industry’s rating system is more detailed than those of the movie 

and music industries.” Considering that the FTC reports parents are involved 

in game purchases and rentals more than eight out of ten times, the use of 

ESRB ratings by parents is the first line of defense in regulating the games kids 

play. 

• Second, we have worked with retailers to ensure that they implement voluntary 

programs to require IDs from any minor seeking to purchase Mature or Adult 

Only rated games, and to post visible signage at the point of sale about the 

ESRB rating system (we have even supported laws in several states that require 

retail signage). You will hear testimony from Wal-Mart about these 

commitments. The latest FTC study found that national retailers successfully 

prevent minors from buying Mature or Adult Only games 65% of the time, 
41

nearly the same level of success as theater owners have in keeping kids out of 

R rated movies, and more than four times better than is the case with sales of R 

rated DVDs. 

• Third, game console manufacturers have stepped up with technological 

solutions to further help parents regulate the games their kids play. The newest 

video game consoles -– the X-Box 360 available now, and the Sony 

PlayStation 3 and the Nintendo Wii, available this November -- will all provide 

password protected parent control technology to enable parents to prevent 

games with inappropriate ratings from loading on the systems. Similar 

software is already available for the PC. 

In sum, parents can use ratings to make appropriate game purchases, they can rely 

increasingly on retailers not to sell inappropriate games directly to minors, and if they 

own the newest consoles they can program them to prevent kids from playing games with 

inappropriate ratings. 

I am aware that there are critics who say the ratings are not reliable, or that they are 

incomplete. But as Jack Valenti used to say far more eloquently than I, ratings are not 

Euclidean geometry. There is no formula that ensures a right answer at the end. We 

have sought to create a video game rating system parents can trust, and by all evidence 

we have succeeded. Not only does the Peter Hart survey funded by ESRB each year 

show broad parental agreement with ESRB rating decisions, the Kaiser Foundation has 

reported that more parents (53%) find the video game rating system “very useful” than 

any other rating system, including movies. Overall, 91% of parents say the ratings are 

“very useful” or “somewhat useful.” 

Here’s the bottom line: no rating system known to man will meet with universal 

approval. Ratings are, by definition, subjective. We live in a pluralistic culture where 

people bring their own values and morals to all manner of issues, including the 

entertainment content they find appropriate for their families. Our industry seeks to 

provide mainstream information that allows informed choice; we do not seek to tell 

people what is right or wrong for them, and we welcome alternatives such as revues 

posted by NIMF, Common Sense, and other groups. 

Ratings are important, but so is honest debate. And too often, critics of the industry 

seek to justify attacks on the industry by selectively citing research they claim establishes 

a definitive link between violent games and aggressive and criminal behavior. I don’t 

want to dwell on this subject here, but I have attached to my testimony some background 

information on the research in this field. Suffice it to say that six federal judges in five 

circuits, judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike, have struck down bills 

seeking to ban video game sales. Apart from issuing clarion statements establishing that 

video games are a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment, every 

one of these jurists has dismissed the weak and flawed science advanced by video game 

critics, including some at today’s hearing, as a basis for state regulation. 

For example, after holding a hearing at which the state’s academic experts took their 

best shot at proving that violent games cause aggression, the District Court in Illinois last 

December concluded that there is “no solid causal link between violent video game 

exposure and aggressive thinking and behavior.” Further, it said even if one accepts a 

connection, “there is no evidence that this effect is at all significant.” Finally, after 

analyzing the brain mapping studies cited by so many anti-video game researchers, the 

court said dismissively, that it found the author of the leading research in the field 

“unpersuasive” and that there is “no basis to permit a reasonable conclusion that” video 

games produce changes in the brain that could make players more aggressive. 

Regarding crime, Harvard researcher Dr. Cheryl Olson wrote in the journal 

Academic Psychiatry in 2004 that “it’s very difficult to document whether and how 

violent video and computer games contribute to serious violence such as criminal assault 
42

and murder....” Similarly, Dr. Joanne Savage, writing in the journal Aggression and 

Violent Behavior on whether viewing violent media really causes criminal violence said: 

“The question addressed here is not whether or not the effect is plausible, but whether the 

effect has been demonstrated convincingly in the scientific literature–and the answer is 

‘not so far.’...At this point it must be said, however, that there is little evidence in favor of 

focusing on media violence as a means of remedying our violent crime problem.” 

I want to leave you with this thought: In the year 2010, there will be 75 million 

Americans between the ages of 10 and 30 – as many in this millennium generation as in 

the Baby Boom Generation – and everyone of them will have grown up with video games 

as a central part of their DNA. Even today, ESA data shows that 35% of American 

parents play video games, and 80% of them play with their kids. Video games are the 

rock and roll music for the digital generation and Halo and The Sims and Zelda are their 

Beatles and Rolling Stones. Indeed, a decade from now, many of your colleagues on that 

dais will be gamers and they will be uniquely comfortable with technology and 

interactivity. Video games are taking their place alongside other forms of mainstream 

popular entertainment. As an industry, that means we have a responsibility to inform and 

empower our consumers; at the same time, I hope it encourages public officials to join in 

that important effort, and not devote time to demonizing an industry which is at once so 

central to tens of millions of Americans, and one so important to America’s technology 

future. 

Thank you. 
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Ms. Vance.

MS. VANCE. Before I begin, I would like to thank Chairman Stearns 

and the entire committee for the invitation to appear today. We applaud 

and strongly support your commitment to inform parents about the 

games that they choose to bring into their homes. I respectfully request 

that my statements, both oral and written, along with instructive 

appendices, be made a part of the hearing record. 

MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

MS. VANCE. The ESRB rating system consists of six age-based 

rating categories with breaks at 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 18 years of age. 

Rating symbols appear on the front and back of each game package, and 

in addition, wherever appropriate, ESRB assigns one or more content 

descriptors that appear prominently on the back of the box next to the 

rating. 
85

Kinds of descriptors, of which there are over 30 currently in use, 

indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a rating or may be of 

interest or concern to consumers, especially parents. 

While games that are rated for mature audiences tend to get a 

disproportionately high amount of media attention, the reality is that 

most of the titles rated by the ESRB receive a rating of “E” or 

“Everyone”, and only about 12 percent are recommended for players 17 

or older, a percentage that has remained constant for the last 2 years. In 

fact, in 2005, not one “Mature”-rated game was listed among the top 

10-selling computer or video games. 

Virtually every computer and video game sold in the U.S. today 

carries an ESRB rating. The Council of Manufacturers will not permit 

games to be published on their system without an ESRB rating, and most 

major retailers choose to only stock games that have been rated by our 

organization. 

ESRB’s highest priority is ensuring that the ratings we assign are 

accurate and useful to parents. Each year we conduct consumer research 

with parents in 10 different markets across the U.S. to measure 

agreement with the ESRB rating assignments. It is critical that our 

ratings reflect mainstream American tastes and values, especially among 

parents of children who play video games. 

Indeed agreement with ESRB ratings has never been higher; 82 

percent of parents agree with our ratings, and another 5 percent think the 

ratings are too strict. These findings are supported by a 2004 report by 

the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that found that among all 

entertainment rating systems, TV, movies, music, and games, parents 

found the ESRB ratings to be the most useful, with the majority of 

parents surveyed finding them to be, quote/unquote, “very useful.” 

Moreover the national PTA has called the ESRB ratings an extremely 

useful and informative tool and urges parents to check the ratings 

whenever buying game. 

Ratings accuracy is solely dependent on our raters’ access to all 

pertinent game content, including the most extreme, no matter how hard 

it may be to find when playing the game. Many of today’s games can 

take upwards of 50 or even 100 hours to play all the way through. Given 

the length and complexity of games, playing every game as part of the 

ratings process, be it for 1 hour, as Professor Thompson did in her study, 

or 10, would provide no assurances whatsoever that all pertinent content 

is being considered in the assignment of a rating. That is why we require 

game publishers to fully disclose to the ESRB in detail, in writing as well 

as on videotape, exactly what is in their game, even content that may be 

hidden to the player. 
86

This includes the most extreme instances of pertinent content across 

a broad range of categories, including violence, sexual, or suggestive 

themes; language; depiction and use of a controlled substance; gambling, 

and more. Publishers must also provide information on the frequency of 

such content, key missions and objectives in the game, and unique 

interactive elements such as the reward system and player control. 

After a game ships, if disclosure is found to have been incomplete, 

recent enhancements to the ESRB enforcement system will soon allow 

for the imposition of fines up to $1 million. The power to impose 

substantial monetary and nonmonetary penalties which may include the 

revocation of ratings services altogether for repeat offenders, combined 

with corrective actions that can essentially mount to a full product recall, 

serve as a tremendous disincentive for any publisher to even consider not 

disclosing all pertinent content. 

As the FDC has noted, ESRB enforcement system is unique in its 

scope and severity among entertainment rating systems. While certain 

critics like Professor Thompson and Dr. Walsh continue to try to 

discredit the ESRB ratings, the fact is that far more often than not, Dr. 

Walsh’s organization and other advocacy groups’ age recommendations 

match our ratings exactly, or very slightly by only a year or two at the 

most. Similarly, Professor Thompson’s research never claims that our 

age recommendations are inappropriate, just that she would prefer we list 

all content in the game instead of that which our raters have determined 

is the most important to communicate to the consumer. 

Professor Thompson’s studies are based on completely different 

criteria than the ESRB uses to assign content descriptors, and there is no 

evidence that her personal opinions on how to assign them are 

representative of public opinion. Case in point, her first study claimed 

that 62 percent of the game play in Pac-Man is, quote/unquote, “violent.” 

I would imagine that most parents and perhaps even many of you would 

disagree with such an assessment. 

So are parents paying attention to the ratings? In a study conducted 

earlier this year by Peter Hart Research, we found that 83 percent of 

parents with children who play games are aware of the ESRB ratings, 

and 3 out of 4 use them regularly when buying games. Furthermore, 

more than half of parents surveyed said they never allow their kids to 

play games rated “M” for “Mature”, and parents are twice as likely to 

ban “M” games when their kids are under the age of 13. 

Despite the high awareness and use of the system, we continue to put 

significant resources into marketing and education initiatives to 

encourage parents to use the ratings every time they buy a game. We 

have received broad media support for our print and radio PSA 

campaigns, audio news releases, satellite, television, and radio media 
87

tours, and will shortly be launching a new initiative with the national 

PTA. 

In addition, ESRB retail partnership program currently spanning 18 

different national retailers generates over a billion consumer impressions 

each year, educating customers about our ratings. We also encourage 

and support retailer policies with respect to the sale of “M”-rated games, 

and we are very pleased that the FTC’s most recent mystery shopper 

audit showed significant progress that national retailers are making in 

enforcing their store policies, which now matches the level of restrictions 

for R-rated films in movie theaters at 65 percent of the time. 

MR. STEARNS. I will need you to sum up. 

MS. VANCE. However, although there has been a significant focus 

by industry critics on retail enforcement, it is also important to note that 

the FTC reported in 2000 that the adults are involved in the purchase of 

video games 83 percent of the time. 

I would like to close today by simply stating that nobody takes these 

issues more seriously than we do. ESRB values immensely the trust that 

millions of parents have placed in the ratings that we assign, and the vast 

majority of parents can and do make sensible choices about the games 

their children play, and our ratings consistently play a critical part in 

those informed decision. That being said, we all can and should work 

more cooperatively to ensure that parents are aware of and are using the 

tools at their disposal. 

Thank you for having me here today. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Patricia E. Vance follows:] 
88

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE 

RATING BOARD
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, welcome.

DR. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me here today. I 

appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. As a parent, consumer, 
114

educator and active academic researcher on media content, and videos 

specifically, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the observations 

that we have made about the content and ratings of video games in the 

context of our peer-reviewed studies and questions that I believe that the 

industry and the ESRB should address related to the process for rated 

games. So in the context of our studies which are attached to the 

statement I have submitted to you, I just want to give you a few of the 

highlights of some of our results. 

In our study of “E”-rated games, those are games rated for 6 and up, 

we found that 64 percent of those games contained violence with injuring 

characters rewarded or required for advancement in those games. So 

talking about incentives, as Mr. Murphy raised, we are finding evidence 

of that starting in the “E”-rated games at 60 percent of those games 

rewarding violent game play. 

We also in our study of “Teen”-rated games observed content that 

we thought could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in almost half of 

the games for which ESRB had not assigned a content descriptor. 

Let me put in context that what we do is we take a random sample of 

the games. We play them. We record the game play and code that game 

play so that what we can do is compare what we find in the actual game 

play to what the ESRB discloses in the ratings. Because we play them, 

we are able to then see games where they have assigned a content 

descriptor and compare the content that they have given those content 

descriptors to games where they have not. And we see similar content 

where they have assigned those kind of descriptors and then games 

where we think they should have it, but that is not assigned. So it is not 

like it is just based on my personal opinion on any individual game. This 

is based on a rigorous scientific method. 

In our study of “Teen”-rated games, we found that 98 percent of the 

games involved intentional violence, with 36 percent of the game play 

time involving violence. And just to give you a number that puts the 

violence in terms of a death toll, over the entire sample we found that the 

players were viewing, or in many cases instigating, virtual human deaths 

at a rate of 61 deaths per hour of game play. That is a virtual human 

death per minute. 

In our sample of “M”-rated video games that we played, we 

observed content that we thought could warrant an ESRB content 

descriptor in 81 percent of the games for which the ESRB had not 

assigned a content descriptor. We found that all the games contained 

intentional acts of violence. And in this case 78 percent of the games 

rewarded or required the player to destroy objects, 100 percent rewarded 

or required the player to injure characters, and 92 percent rewarded or 
115

required the player to kill. In this context we again had 104 virtual 

human deaths per hour. We are seeing a lot of deaths in these games. 

We consistently find that the games contain a significant amount of 

violent and explicit content that may be of concern to parents, and it is, in 

our opinion, inconsistently labeled by the Rating Board. Given this 

research, I believe that there are several important improvements in the 

rating system that are needed, and I hope that this committee will ask 

questions about the ratings to ensure that the industry, in fact, has the 

right incentives to improve them. 

Point number one is that I believe the ESRB should play each and 

every game prior to assigning its age-based ratings and content 

descriptors. We have said since our 2001 study on “E”-rated games that 

we thought the ESRB should make playing games part of its ratings 

process. And we specifically said in one of our 2004 studies on 

“Teen”-rated games, “Our results also suggest the ESRB should play the 

video games as part of its rating process to provide a means to ensure the 

absence of content other than that indicated by the material submitted to 

the ESRB by the game manufacturers. However, we emphasize that 

game manufacturers should continue to provide all the information they 

currently provide to the ESRB because the rater should not have to play 

the entire game prior to assigning the rating; anyone playing the game 

could miss specific content.” 

Thus, to be completely clear, we suggest the ESRB should play the 

finished game as it would be played by consumers before assigning its 

ratings, in addition to its current process of collecting information from 

the publishers. We have not stipulated any length of time they should 

play, nor have we said the raters themselves must play. We remain very 

concerned, however, that the inability of the ESRB to play the games 

prior to assigning its ratings means the ESRB cannot independently 

evaluate the content of games, which in turn undermines consumer 

confidence in the ratings. 

We also are not able to determine whether the mismatch between our 

observations and the ESRB content descriptors results from a failure of 

publishers to disclose content to the ESRB, the ESRB’s decisions not to 

provide content descriptors that we would expect based on its definitions 

and what we observe in other games that receive the same ESRB content 

descriptors, or if the game content changes between the assignment of 

the ratings and the packaging of the final product. Thus, we believe the 

ESRB should play the finished games before it assigns ratings, and we 

believe the recent decision by the ESRB to re-rate Elder Scrolls IV: 

Oblivion, which was mentioned earlier, from “Teen” to “Mature” clearly 

demonstrates that playing the game made a difference. What was 

unfortunate in this case, and also, of course, in the case of San Andreas, 
116

is that those games were extensively sold, marketed, and played prior to 

the time the correction was made. So obviously this is an important 

concern for the committee. 

Point number two is I believe the ESRB should make its rating 

process and the terms that it uses in its ratings more transparent. Our 

studies point to the need for clear, consistent, and well-communicated 

criteria for assigning age-based ratings and content descriptors. Our 

studies rely on playing the actual games, coding them, and comparing the 

observed content to what we observe in other games based on the 

ESRB’s published information. 

We believe that more clarity and transparency would be very helpful 

to the industry as well. For example, in response to its decision to 

change the Elder Scrolls rating on Oblivion, our impression, the 

comments made by Bethesda Softworks, they said they felt they had 

properly disclosed to the ESRB. So again, we think that having clear, 

transparent criteria is not only good for parents, it is probably also good 

for the industry as well. We do not think we allow the same kind of 

ambiguity with ingredients in foods, and why should we allow them in 

quality of our ratings for media products? 

Our studies consistently find content that is labeled in some games 

and not others. We think some of the lack of consistency clearly derives 

from the lack of transparency in the process and definition. The ESRB 

has also stated in its press release responding to our most recent study on 

“M”-rated games that it has “repeatedly informed us about flaws in our 

methodology.” And for the record, I would like to emphasize that the 

ESRB has never provided any scientific basis for its allegations about 

flaws in our methods, and we were very surprised to see the ESRB make 

such statements. We asked the ESRB to provide evidence of this 

assertion, and we believe that their assertion of “flaws” in our methods is 

a very serious scientific allegation. 

We have met with the ESRB on several occasions to discuss our 

research, and the ESRB has not provided us with any scientific evidence 

of flaws in our research. The ESRB has also failed to provide us with 

any information about their specific criteria for applying ratings beyond 

what is available on the ESRB Web site. If the ESRB provided us with 

this information, we could use it as a basis for comparison to our 

methods. 

We believe that Members of this Congress, parents, and the media 

should ask the ESRB to make public its specific criteria for assigning 

ratings and content descriptors. The ESRB requires game manufacturers 

to provide examples of the most extreme content, but do they do so? 

How would we know? And should parents expect the content 

descriptors to provide information about all types of content and games, 
117

or have the content descriptors now become like the MPAA rating 

reasons, indicating only some of the content? 

With the information to parents very unclear on this, and parents and 

kids easily able to observe omissions as they experience actual game 

play, the ESRB, in my opinion, should focus much more on ensuring the 

quality of its information and worry less on promoting its ratings system. 

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, we will need you to wrap up. 

DR. THOMPSON. I believe the members of this committee should ask 

the ESRB to provide in writing the specific actual criteria that ESRB 

uses. On the point of accuracy, the ESRB, I believe, should also make 

clear what it believes is possible with respect to accuracy of the ratings. 

It does say in its mission, and I believe this mission is right, that it is 

striving to provide consumers, especially parents, with accurate and 

objective information about the age suitability and content of computer 

and video games so they can make informed decisions. But I believe that 

it is important to realize that the ESRB is inconsistent again in this area. 

For example, the ESRB said in its recent communication to the FTC 

that it regularly commissions the Peter Hart Research Associates to 

conduct surveys on awareness, use and validity, not the accuracy of 

ratings. It is in stark contrast also to the ESRB’s press release, which 

was titled “New Study Shows Parents Overwhelmingly Agree with 

Video Game Ratings, ESRB Ratings Found to Be Highly Accurate.” 

So again, I believe members of this committee should ask the ESRB 

to clarify its position on accuracy and objectivity in its ratings, and that 

the Federal Trade Commission should continue to conduct its own 

studies. 

Finally, I think one of the most important things the ESRB needs to 

do is distinguish real peer-reviewed scientific studies from nonpublicly 

available market research that it commissions. With respect to the Peter 

Hart market surveys which Ms. Vance just mentioned, the ESRB 

commission says they are not peer-reviewed, they are not published, and 

they are not publicly available. And in this regard they are not 

comparable to the study of scientific work that we do. 

We also note that the Federal Register--and you can find all of the 

citations to all of these quotes in my statement--says that “the ESRB’s 

validity studies involve the display of 1 or 2 minutes of video game play 

to parents of children who play video games. The brevity of these clips 

may limit the use of the results because games typically take many hours 

to complete. Moreover, it is unknown whether the content selected for 

these brief video clips fully represents the full range of content that 

causes the ESRB, whose raters rely on more extensive footage of game 

play as well as the publisher’s responses, to assign a particular game 

rating.” 
118

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, I will probably have you sum up. 

DR. THOMPSON. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. 

MR. STEARNS. Your entire statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

DR. THOMPSON. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. I do 

think you should ask them to submit evidence that allows independent 

researchers to review anything they submit as a study which is otherwise 

not peer-reviewable. And also it is important for all of us who believe in 

self-regulation to make sure the system is working as well as it can. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kimberly M. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KIMBERLY M. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, KIDS RISK PROJECT,

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF RISK ANALYSIS AND DECISION SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for 

recognizing the important role of media in the lives of children and for inviting me to 

present my views on the violent and explicit video games: informing parents and 

protecting children. As a parent, consumer, educator, and active academic researcher on 

media content and video games specifically, I welcome the opportunity to comment on: 

1 . the observations that we have made about content and ratings of video games in 

the context of our peer-reviewed studies 

2. questions that I believe are important for the video game rating board to address 

related to its process for rating games 

Over the past several years, my research group at the Harvard School of Public 

Health has conducted several studies that quantitatively evaluated the actual content of 

video games. This work includes studies on violence in E-rated, T-rated video games, and 

M-rated video games. Each of these studies yielded significant insights including: 

1. We found that 35 of the 55 (64%) E-rated (for “Everyone”) video games studied 

contained violence (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs3.htm), with injuring characters 

rewarded or required for advancement in 33 games (60%). 

2. We observed content that could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in 39 out of 

81 games (48%) T-rated (for "Teen") video games for which the ESRB had not assigned 

a content descriptor, and we did not observe the content indicated by an ESRB content 

descriptor within one hour of game play for seven games. These games may be a source 

of exposure to a wide range of unexpected content 

(http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs4.htm). 

3. In the random sample of 81 T-rated video games we played: 

79 games (98%) involved intentional violence, representing 36% of game play time, 

73 games (90%) rewarded or required the player to injure characters, 

56 games (69%) rewarded or required the player to kill, and 

we observed 5,689 human deaths for these 81 games, occurring at an average rate of 61 

human deaths per hour of game play time (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs5.htm). 

4. In a random sample of M-rated video games we played, we observed content that 

could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in 81% of these for which the ESRB had not 

assigned a content descriptor (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs8.html). 

We consistently find that the games contain a significant amount of violence and 

explicit content that may be of concern to parents, which is inconsistently labeled by the 
119

rating board. I would be happy to show the members of the Subcommittee examples of 

some of the unlabeled content that we have observed. 

Given this research, we believe that several improvements in the rating system are 

needed, and that Congress should ensure that the industry has incentives to improve its 

ratings: 

1. The ESRB should play each and every game prior to assigning its age-based 

ratings and content descriptors. We have said since our 2001 study on E-rated video 

games that we thought the ESRB should make playing the games part of the rating 

process. We specifically said in one of our 2004 studies on T-rated games that “Our 

results also suggest that the ESRB should play the video games as part of its rating 

process to provide a means to ensure the absence of content other than that indicated in 

the materials submitted to the ESRB by the game manufacturers. However, we emphasize 

that game manufacturers should continue to provide all of the information that they 

currently provide to the ESRB because the raters should not have to play the entire game 

prior to assigning a rating; anyone playing the games could miss specific content.” Thus, 

to be completely clear, we suggest that the ESRB should play the finished game before 

assigning its ratings, in addition to its current process of collecting information from 

publishers. We have not stipulated the length of game play time, nor have we said that the 

raters themselves must play the game. We remain concerned, however, that the inability 

of the ESRB to play the finished games prior to assigning its ratings means that the ESRB 

cannot independently evaluate the content of games, which in turn may undermine 

consumer confidence in the ratings. We are not able to determine whether the mismatch 

between our observations and the ESRB content descriptors results from failure of the 

publishers to disclose content to the ESRB, the ESRB’s decisions not to provide content 

descriptors that we would expect based on its definitions and what we observe in other 

games that received the same ESRB content descriptors, or if the game content changes 

between the assignment of the ratings and packaging of the final product. Thus, we 

believe that the ESRB should play the finished games before it assigns its ratings. We 

believe that the ESRB’s recent decision to change its rating of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 

from Teen to Mature clearly demonstrates that playing the game makes a difference. 

What is unfortunate in this case is that the ESRB found the more detailed depictions of 

blood and gore in the Xbox 360 version after assigning its ratings and content descriptors 

and after the game has already been sold extensively with the Teen rating. It should be 

noted, however, that the Teen-rated version of the game also received a content 

descriptor for “Blood and Gore,” which raises legitimate questions about where the 

ESRB draws the line between Teen-rated video games and Mature-rated video games. In 

our quantitative studies of T-rated and M-rated games, we have observed significantly 

more blood depicted in M-rated games, but similar amounts of violence. 

2. The ESRB should make its rating process and the terms that it uses in its ratings 

more transparent. Our studies point to the need for clear, consistent, and wellcommunicated criteria for assigning age-based ratings and content descriptors. Our 

studies rely on playing the actual games, coding all of the content using definitions that 

we publish in our papers, and comparing the observed content to what we observe in 

other games and based on the ESRB’s published information. We believe that more 

clarity and transparency would also be helpful to the industry. For example, in response 

to its decision to change the rating of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, our impression based on 

Bethesda Softworks’ response is that they felt that they had properly disclosed the 

content to the ESRB (see their press release at: 

http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_050306.htm). The bottom line here is that 

consumers need to know what the ratings do and do not tell them. We don’t allow 

ambiguity in the ingredients on foods, why should we be so tolerant of low quality in the 

ratings on media products? Our studies consistently find content that is labeled in some 
120

games and not in others. Some of this lack of consistency clearly derives from lack of 

transparency in the process and definitions. 

The ESRB also stated in its press release responding to our recent study on M-rated 

games that it has "repeatedly informed" us about flaws in your methodology. For the 

record, I would like to emphasize that the ESRB has never provided any scientific basis 

for its allegations about flaws in our methods and we were very surprised to see the 

ESRB make such statements. We asked the ESRB to provide evidence for this assertion 

and we believe that their assertion of “flaws” in our methods is a very serious scientific 

allegation. We have met with the ESRB on several occasions to discuss our research and 

the ESRB has not provided us with any scientific evidence of flaws in our research. The 

ESRB has also failed to provide us with any information about their specific criteria for 

applying ratings beyond what is available on the ESRB website; if the ESRB provided us 

with this information, we could use it as a basis for comparison to our methods. We 

believe that members of Congress, parents, and the media should ask the ESRB to make 

public its specific criteria for assigning ratings and content descriptors. The ESRB 

requires game manufacturers to provide examples of the most extreme content, but do 

they do so? Should parents expect the content descriptors to provide information about 

all of the types of content in the games, or have the content descriptors now become more 

like the MPAA’s rating reasons indicating only some of the content? With the 

information to parents very unclear on this, and parents and kids easily able to observe 

omissions as they experience actual game play, the ESRB should in my opinion focus 

more on ensuring the quality of its information and worry less about its advertising. 

3. The ESRB needs to decide whether it believes that ratings can be “accurate” or 

not and make clear what it means. I believe that the ESRB has the right mission, which 

according to its website is: “To provide consumers, especially parents, with accurate and 

objective information about the age suitability and content of computer and video games 

so they can make informed purchase decisions” (http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp). I 

believe that accurate and objective information is essential, and I am concerned with 

inconsistencies in the ESRB ratings and in what the ESRB says about its ratings system. 

For example, on page 2 of its recent comments to the FTC, the ESRB wrote that: “The 

ESRB regularly commissions Peter D. Hart Research Associates to conduct surveys on 

awareness, use and validity – not the accuracy – of the ratings” 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/entertainindstrystudy/051123esrb.pdf). This is in stark 

contrast to the ESRB’s November 22, 2004 press release about this same commissioned 

survey that was titled: “New Study Shows Parents Overwhelmingly Agree with Video 

Game Ratings – ESRB Ratings Found to be ‘Highly Accurate.’” 

(http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/validity_study_11_22_04.pdf). 

 4. The ESRB needs to distinguish real peer-reviewed scientific studies from nonpublicly available market research that it commissions. With respect to the ESRBcommissioned Peter Hart market surveys, we emphasize that these surveys are not peerreviewed, published, or publicly available. In this regard, they are not scientific studies 

that can be compared with our research. We are not able to review the methods used, 

questions asked, or analyses performed, but we believe that these surveys do not ask 

parents about the ESRB’s assignment of content descriptors and they do not show parents 

the same information that is provided to the ESRB raters. Note that the March 30, 2006 

Federal Register (footnote 16 on page 16156) states that: "The ESRB's validity studies 

involve the display of one to two minute clips of video game play to parents of children 

who play video games. The brevity of these clips may limit the use of the results because 

games typically take many hours to complete. Moreover, it is unknown whether the 

content selected for these brief video clips fully represents the range and frequency of 

content that caused the ESRB (whose raters rely on more extensive footage of game play 

as well as the publisher's responses to a detailed questionnaire) to assign the game a 

particular rating." (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/03/060330frnsurveyvideoesrb.pdf) 
121

Given the important role of the media ratings as the current strategy in our selfregulatory system – a system that gives us all the freedoms to create and to choose media 

and that reflects values deeply held by all Americans – I believe that Congress must hold 

the industry accountable for the quality of the information that it provides to consumers 

and ensure that the system works and protects children. Freedom depends on 

responsibility. 

In my view, many of the current problems with the existing systems derive from a 

lack of a scientific and research-based foundation for providing ratings information. A 

rigorous system of ratings must begin with some standard definitions that can be used to 

classify content and to clearly and consistently inform parents. While these definitions 

and classifying content includes subjectivity, that’s no excuse for not trying to be as 

objective as possible. Our studies have demonstrated that using consistent definitions can 

work and provide comparative information, and I believe that it’s time for the industry to 

start to perform its own content analyses and accurately report the ingredients of its 

products to consumers. I believe that the industry can better label its products and in 

doing so help parents make better choices, and that this is required as media continue to 

push the boundaries and consume more time in the lives of our children. Thank you very 

much again for the opportunity to testify today. 

References: 

1. Thompson KM, Haninger K. Violence in E-rated video games. Journal of the 

American Medical Association 2001;286(5):591-598. See related letter at: Journal of the 

American Medical Association 2001;286(16):1972. 

2. Haninger K, Thompson, KM. Content and Ratings of Teen-Rated Video Games. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(7):856-865. 

3. Haninger K, Ryan MS, Thompson KM. Violence in Teen-Rated Video Games. 

Medscape General Medicine 2004(March 11);6(1). (Available at: 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468087). 

4. Thompson KM, Tepichin K, Haninger K. Content and Ratings of Mature-Rated Video 

Games. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2006; 160:402-410 

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Buckleitner.

DR. BUCKLEITNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I was 

Fred Upton’s paperboy. You have done well, Fred. 

It is an honor to testify today. I appear before you as an independent 

software reviewer, a library trustee, a former teacher, and a parent of two 

daughters. But I guess the reason I am here today is because I play a lot 

of games, about 7,308 as of yesterday, as editor of a software review 

publication. I started reviewing software in 1984 on an Apple II. I have 

traveled the Oregon Trail. I have hunted for Carmen San Diego. I have 

killed thousands of bad guys. I have squished some cops in Grand Theft 

Auto. I can hold my own in DDR and load a UMD on a PSP. And I 

have played tennis with Mario, skated with Tony Hawk, and golfed with 

Tiger Woods. I filled hot tubs with Sims, and helped Joan of Arc 

conquer the Mongols all in a weekend. 

This is a powerful form of media. At the Mediatech Foundation 

where I test software, I witnessed two high school boys stay awake for 

36 hours trying to fly an airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, across the 

Atlantic in an attempt to repeat Charles Lindbergh’s famous flight to 
122

Paris in real time. It was fascinating. They used the Microsoft flight 

simulator using GPS and real weather conditions. But unlike Lindbergh, 

they crashed four times. 

Recently I flew a Harrier jet using the new TS-3 controller, and I 

conducted an orchestra with the Nintendo remote. 

The first point to take away from my testimony is that improving 

technology driven by Moore’s law is going to make the next 5 years very 

interesting. We need to protect our children, but from what? There is 

little consensus on the short or long-term effects of violent games on 

human development. Most would agree, however, that normally 

developing children, which is a different population than Mr. Terry 

worked with, can distinguish between fantasy and reality. Most parents 

are taking their cues directly from children. That is why you go buy a 

“Teen”-rated Star Wars game for a third-grader who loves Star Wars. 

There are less obvious things to protect children from, in my opinion, 

including ethnic and gender stereotyping, commercialism, being left 

alone for hours, and unsupervised use of the Internet. And what about 

plain old old-fashioned low quality, which is certainly less newsworthy 

than “Hot Coffee.” 

I have also wondered why the software publishing business seems to 

be authorless, hence blameless, unlike books or movies where an author 

like Rowling or director’s game name is prominently displayed. There 

should be a way to see who is behind the games. I would like to know 

the guy that put that add-on to that game so I can know what he stands 

for. The logic is you would be less likely to put racy content in a game if 

your mother knew it was you who put it in. 

It is important in this hearing not to confuse linear versus nonlinear 

media. I see it all the time. Unlike books and movies where you can see 

the beginning through the end, interactive media which we are talking 

about here today is slippery and three-dimensional. We need a ratings 

system that is smart on these issues. 

The current ESRB system lets people who know their content the 

best, the publishers, take responsibility for disclosing what is in their 

product and pay the price if they do not. In my opinion, there is no better 

way to do this. 

Over the next few years we are going to see many more interactive 

options seep into the lives of our children. It will be increasingly harder 

to define a video game versus software versus TV toy versus mobile 

phone, and any future ratings system will have to deal with this. 

Let me talk specifically about the ESRB. We and the parenting 

magazines we work with have come to count on the ESRB to reliably tell 

us if a title is appropriate for a certain age range, and if the type of 

content may be inappropriate. If they were not accurate, we would hear 
123

about it in seconds after the papers hit the deadline. But the way the 

ratings are interpreted is less solid. Some parents and retailers do not 

seem to mind “M”-rated games, and they probably should, and the 

descriptors tend to be overlooked. 

In my testimony I have pictures that I just took yesterday of the KB 

Toys Web site of “Mature”-rated games right next to Curious George. 

That is not right, and this is a toy store where kids go. Why shouldn’t a 

toy store sell Bud Light and cigarettes as well and other “M”-rated 

products? 

Finally, there is a new kind of digital divide to think about. 

Participation in the video game culture is expensive. These games cost 

$50. What about the families who are not participating in this culture? It 

is a whole new conversation. 

In conclusion, trustworthy consumer information such as that 

provided by the current ESRB ratings system is a foundation for the 

development of an interactive publishing business and for higher-quality 

use by families. We need accurate labels. The biggest challenge we face 

is to help parents, grandparents, and teachers use existing descriptors and 

to continue to study the effects of interactive media in light of the next 

generation of connected consoles and HDTVs. As researchers we need 

to raise the level of dialogue by citing references and trying the games 

ourselves firsthand, observing real kids, and grounding our opinions in 

firm data. It is safe to say there has never been a better time to pick up a 

controller and play along with a child. Thank you. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Warren Buckleitner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WARREN BUCKLEITNER, PH.D., EDITOR, CHILDREN’S 

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

It is an honor to testify today. I appear before you as a software reviewer, library 

trustee, former teacher, and parent of two daughters, ages 11 and 14. 

I guess the reason I’ve ended up here today is because I’ve played a lot of games 

(about 7,308 as of yesterday) as editor of a software review publication. I started 

reviewing software in 1984 on an Apple II, traveling the Oregon Trail, hunting Carmen 

Sandiego and coloring with KidPix. I’ve killed thousands of bad guys, squished some 

cops in Grand Theft Auto, and punched myself silly in Mortal Kombat. I can hold my 

own in DDR, load a UMD on a PSP; but I still can’t beat my youngest daughter in Hot 

Wheels Turbo Racing. I’ve played tennis with the Mario Bros., skated with Tony Hawk

and golfed with Tiger Woods. I’ve filled hot tubs with Sims and helped Joan of Arc 

conquer the Mongols, all in a single weekend. 

At the Mediatech Foundation, where I test software, I witnessed two high school 

students stay awake for 36 hours trying to fly The Spirit of St. Louis across the Atlantic, 

in a failed attempt to repeat Charles Lindbergh’s flight to Paris with Microsoft Flight 

Simulator, using real time weather conditions and modern GPS. Lately I’ve seen children 

competing against one other using an innovative wireless networking title, called Brain 

Games, on math facts. Recently, I flew a Harrier jet, using the new PS3 controller, which 
124

uses the position and motion of your hands to control the aircraft; and I conducted an 

orchestra using the Nintendo Wii remote. The first point to take from this testimony–

improving technology, driven by Moore’s Law, will make the next five years very 

interesting. 

What have I learned, and what does it mean for US families? 

• We need to protect our children—but from what? There is little consensus on the short 

or long-term effects of violent games on human development. Most would agree, 

however, that normally developing children can distinguish between fantasy and reality. I 

certainly do. Most parents are taking their cues directly from their individual children, 

and perhaps that is why they have no problems buying a T rated Star Wars game for their 

third grader. This is not known issue. 

• There may be less obvious things to protect children from, including ethnic and gender 

stereotyping, hidden commercialism, being left alone for hours and unsupervised use of 

the Internet. And what about plain, old-fashioned “low quality,” which is certainly less 

newsworthy than “hot coffee.” Some games are just poorly designed; a waste of family 

resources and precious childhood time. Others load your computer with commercial links 

that can slow a computer to a crawl. There’s a growing category of web-based content for 

sale, such as services for SAT test prep, where you can find typos on the sample tests. 

• Software publishing seems to be authorless, and hence blameless, unlike books or 

movies, where the author and/or director’s name is prominently displayed. There should 

be a way to see who is behind games. You’d be less likely to put racy content in a game, 

if you knew your mother or children could tell it was you that decided to put it in. 

• It is important in this hearing to make the distinction between interactive and noninteractive (linear vs. non-linear) media. Unlike movies, where you can see the beginning 

through the end, or a book where you see how many pages you have, interactive media is 

three dimensional, fluid and dynamic. To this end, we need a rating system that can 

capture the complexity of millions of lines of code, or the inner working of an MMOG 

(Massively Multiplayer Online Game). The ESRB system lets the people who know their 

content the best—the publishers—take responsibility for disclosing what is in the 

product. There is no better way to do this. 

• With more platforms comes more consumer confusion. A single movie, such as 

Disney/Pixar Cars, will generate nine video games, which are different for each platform. 

These differences should be better defined for the consumer. 

• As hardware improves over time, more interactive options will seep into the lives of 

children. It will become increasingly harder to define a “video game” vs.“software” vs. 

“TV toy” vs. “mobile phone” It helps to turn the question around and look at it through 

the eyes of a child, at all developmental levels. What quality interactive options does a 

child have to explore, at any given time? Is there quality? Is there balance? 

• We have found the ESRB rating system to be both necessary and reliable. We, and the 

parenting magazines we work with, have come to count on the ESRB to tell us if a title is 

appropriate for a certain age range and if the type of content might be inappropriate. The 

validity of the ratings (or the way they are interpreted), however, is less solid. Some 

parents and retailers don’t seem to mind M rated games when they probably should, and 

the descriptors tend to be overlooked. Mature-rated games are easy to find in toy stores. 
125

Why do toy stores mix M rated games with obvious children’s content? Why are there no 

descriptors online? (Both screens, from www.kbtoys.com captured on June 12, 2006) 

• We have found the ESRB staff to be responsive to our questions. 

• Video games are no longer just for kids. Increasingly, more titles will be designed for 

older audiences, and the ratings will reflect this. But it is important to remember (and less 

newsworthy) that 85% of the current 11,937 games have no worrisome content, and 

many have positive educational outcomes. 

• There’s a new kind of digital divide to consider. Participation in the video game culture 

can be expensive. The best quality online activities cost $10 per month, and games cost 

$50 each. Kids without the money and access to expensive game systems are being left 

out. There are new faces to the digital divide. 

Trustworthy consumer information, such as that provided by the current ESRB 

rating system, is the foundation for the development of interactive publishing, and for 

higher quality use by families. The biggest challenge we face now is to help consumers 

use the existing descriptors, and to continue to study the effects of interactive media in 

light of the next generation of connected consoles and HDTVs. As researchers, we should 
126

raise the level of dialog by citing references and trying games ourselves first hand, 

observing real kids and grounding opinions with firm data. There has never been a better 

time to pick up a controller and to play along with a child. 

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Walsh. 

MR. WALSH. Thank you very much. I am the founder of the 

National Institute on Media and the Family and proud that over the last 

10 years we have issued an annual video and computer game report card 

in which we have taken a snapshot of the industry as it affects children, 

and that has been our interest. We are also the group that alerted the 

public to the “Hot Coffee” scenario last July 7 in our first ever national 

parent advisory. 

I would like to divide my 5 minutes into a couple of different 

sections. One is I would like to amplify on Congressman Murphy’s 

comments about the impact of these games on children. Congressman 

Murphy made some very, very important points, and I would only like to 

add to them by mentioning that the new research about the developing 

brain adds a new level of importance in terms of understanding the 

impact of these games. 

I would like to mention three things. One is that one of the basic 

principles that we now know about children’s brain development is that 

very simple principle of the brain cells that fire together wire together. 

The more they fire together, the stronger the connection becomes. 

Secondly, while experience is key in determining how a child’s brain 

gets wired, not all experiences are equal. Some experiences have a 

greater impact than others. And those that have the greatest impact are 

those that happen during a brain’s growth spurts. 

The third point I would like to make is that we thought up until very 

recently that the brains’ growth spurts were finished by the age of 10. 

That turns out to be not true. We now know through the recent research 

that the teenage brain is not the finished product that we thought it was 

from a physical point of view. It is a work in progress, a series of major 

construction zones. And as we understand what those construction zones 

are, that helps us understand why they act the way they do. 

Two of the major construction zones in the teenage brain have to do 

with impulse control, and the other is what I call the acceleration center 

of the brain, and both of those are undergoing major change. So when 

we think about kids and teenagers playing these games, we need to 

understand that in addition to everything Congressman Murphy said, the 

new brain research shows that these games do indeed have a very, very 

big impact on kids. 

The second category of comments that I would like to make has to 

do with where the technology is going. Over the 10 years we have 

issued the video and computer game report card, we have seen 
127

tremendous change in terms of the power of the technology. We are 

headed very quickly toward virtual reality. That is the stated goal of the 

industry. When we think of the benefits of that technology, it can be 

exciting. When we think of the potential harm, it is scary. 

Another development that has been mentioned by different 

Congresspeople in their opening comments has to do with, I think, the 

emergence of sexual content. Last week for the first time ever there was 

a meeting between video game developers and the pornography industry. 

One of the people in that meeting made the statement, “Don’t tell me I 

have to abide by this little Disneyesque palette. I may never even use the 

hard core end of my palate in any game that I make, but don’t tell me 

that I can’t.” 

So I think increasingly we are going to see games similar to the one 

that is coming out next month called Naughty America, which is literally 

a game that features virtual sex. 

The other thing that is going to be more and more true in the future is 

that games are going to be more of an on-line environment, which is 

going to make the challenge even more difficult because right now most 

gamers have to walk into a Wal-Mart or a Target or a Best Buy to buy 

the game. Increasingly they will be downloaded off the Internet, which 

makes everything that we talk about today even more important. 

There are a number of recommendations I have made in my written 

comments. I will not repeat all of them, but I would like to just highlight 

a couple. I think one of the things that would be helpful to parents as 

they exercise their responsibility is to have one universal ratings system 

for all forms of media. The present alphabet soup is just confusing. I 

think it is important for the industry to stop giving double messages to 

parents. On the one hand, the industry and the ESRB tell parents to pay 

attention to the ratings. On the other hand, they consistently deny the 

research that shows that these games do have an impact on children. I 

think we need to be clear about why it is important to pay attention to the 

ratings. 

In sum, I would like to suggest a comparison, that video games in a 

sense are like medicine. We all know there are medicines that are very, 

very helpful for children, and there are also medicines that are toxic. 

And so part of what we do with medicines is we label them, and we talk 

about the impact, we talk about the effects, we talk about the side effects, 

and those are clearly labeled so people can make decisions. 

With regard to medicines, there are two important parts. One is 

dosage, how much; the other is what the medicine is. I think 

increasingly we have to look at both. Dosage has to do with what is 

emerging as video game addiction for some kids, and the content, of 

course, is what we are focusing on in this meeting. 
128

The National Institute on Media and the Family, in conjunction with 

Iowa State University, is in the process of convening is a national 

summit in October of the leading child advocacy groups and experts in 

the country to take a look at video games. We will be happy to submit a 

set of recommendations from that meeting when we are concluded. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. David Walsh follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALSH, PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON 

MEDIA AND THE FAMILY

Video games have become a favorite activity for American children and youth. 96% 

of boys and 78% of girls play video games on a regular basis with girls playing an 

average of five hours per week and boys thirteen.1

 While the majority of games produced 

are appropriate for young players, a growing number of titles feature extreme violence 

and gore as well as sexual content. While they represent only a fraction of games on the 

market these ultra-violent games are particularly popular with pre-teen and teenage boys. 

78% of boys report that M-rated games are among their top five favorites and 40% name 

an M-rated game as their favorite. 77% of boys under seventeen own an M-rated game.2

Over the past ten years the National Institute on Media and the Family has tracked 

and monitored the growth of the video game industry. Last fall we released our tenth 

Video and Computer Game Report Card as well as a ten year retrospective on the 

industry. It is clear that the games have become more violent, more sexually explicit and 

more profane. Ratings creep and the reluctance of the industry sponsored ESRB to use 

the AO rating (Adults Only) mean that these games are available to more and more 

children and youth. 

A growing body of research shows that games influence young players. While the 

industry touts the studies that show the positive effects, they discredit those that 

demonstrate any harm. The psychological and behavioral studies show that violent video 

games increase real world aggression in kids.3

 The newest frontier in research is brain 

based and point to a number of important factors related to the impact of video game 

violence on youth. 

1. Experiences that happen during a young brain’s growth spurts have a greater 

impact than at any other time. 

2. Contrary to earlier beliefs, the teenage brain is still under construction with the 

growth spurts involving impulse control, anger management, and the control of 

sexual urges undergoing major development. 4

3. The discovery of “mirror cells” explains why young players are likely to 

imitate the behaviors they rehearse on the screens.5

 

1

 Gentile, D.A., Paul Lynch, Jennifer Ruh Linder, & David Walsh. “The effects of violent video 

game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of 

Adolescence 27 (2004) 5-22. 2

 National Institute on Media and the Family. “Eight Annual Video and Computer Game Report 

Card” December 8, 2003. 

3

 Anderson, C.A. & Brad Bushman, (2001) Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive 

Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: 

A Meta-analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological Science, 12 (2001) 353-359. 4

 Walsh, DA. Why Do They Act That Way? A Survival Guide to the Adolescent Brain for You and 

Your Teen. New York: Free Press, 2004. 5

 Gallese, V. "The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis and the Neural Basis of 

Intersubjectivity. Psychopathology 36 (2003) 171-180. 
129

4. Brain research shows that the circuits related to aggression activate while 

playing violent video games while those responsible for impulse control deactivate.6

The combination of psychological and brain based research provide a growing 

rationale for the need to prevent young gamers from playing very violent and sexually 

explicit games. The urgency grows because of the following factors. 

1. Game technology continues to advance making the games more realistic and 

engaging. The goal of the industry is virtual reality. 

2. Some game producers seem intent on pushing the boundaries of violence. Take 

Two Entertainment has the games Bully and Grand Theft Auto 4 in the 

production pipeline. 

3. Sexual content will increase. The game Naughty America, a sex simulation 

game, will be released this summer. Last week video game producers met with 

leaders from the sex entertainment industry. A veteran game designer was 

quoted as saying, “Don't tell me I have to abide by this little Disney-esque 

palette. I may never even use the hard-core end of the palette in any game I 

make. But don't tell me I can't do that." 

4. The future of games is in the on-line environment making it more difficult to 

control sale and access. 

Therefore, it is more urgent than ever to inform and educate parents to become 

MediaWise®. Education is going to be more effective than legislation prohibiting the 

sale of games for two reasons: 

 All legislative efforts have been invalidated by the judicial system as violations 

of first amendment rights. The exception to this may be the sexually explicit 

games which may be covered under laws prohibiting the sale of sexually 

explicit material to minors. 

 As game sales migrate to an on-line environment access will be easier and 

retail sales will be less important. 

Therefore I would recommend that policy leaders support efforts to educate parents. 

The following steps would be useful. 

1. Develop a universal rating system for all visual media. The current alphabet 

soup of ratings is confusing to parents and is the reason that so many parents 

still do know understand the ESRB ratings. 

2. Instruct the industry to be clearer about the potential harm for youth. Currently 

the industry sends a double message. On the one hand, they tell parents to pay 

attention to ratings and at the same time they deny that games can have any 

harmful effects. The tobacco industry, for example, has to label their products 

as potentially harmful to users. 

3. Instruct the game industry and retailers to accelerate their efforts to keep Mrated games out of the hands of minors. 

4. Instruct on-line game producers and distributors to have effective age 

verification policies. 

5. The current distinction between M-rated and AO-rated (adults only) games is 

confusing and almost meaningless since so few games ever receive the AO 

rating. This should be revised. 

6. Independent validity and reliability evaluations of the ESRB rating system 

should be done and reported to policy makers. 

 

6

 Philips, H. “Violent videdo games alter brain’s response to violence,” 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449 (Accessed June 9, 2006) 
130

7. Support the promotion and distribution of independent ratings. 

8. Support public education efforts to educate parents, youth professionals, 

communities and organizations serving youth. Programs like our MediaWise® 

program strive to do exactly that. Our website at mediawise.org provides 

independent ratings, research findings, information, and education resources for 

parents. 

MR. STEARNS. Staff told me that you might be showing a video. 

Did you want to show a video? 

MR. WALSH. No. I just restricted my comments. 

MR. STEARNS. I appreciate that all of you would like to have more 

than 5 minutes, but as you can see, we are all confined here as Members, 

we have to go vote and so forth, so we would like to keep things going. 

I will start with the questioning. Mr. Severson, I went to the 

Wal-Mart Web site where you sell Grand Theft Auto, and it is rated “M” 

on the Web site. And so from there I read what the “M” rating said. It 

says, “this game contains intense violence, blood and gore, sexual 

contents and/or strong language. You must be 17 years or older to 

purchase this item. This product is intended for mature audiences only. 

By ordering this item you are certifying that you are 17 years of age. If 

you agree to the above terms click ‘I agree’.” So if you click “I agree,” 

you can get this pretty easily. 

Mr. Lowenstein, what we are talking about here is not just singling 

out Grand Theft Auto. We are talking, as Mr. Walsh just said, about a 

grander problem here in which children can get access to Grand Theft 

Auto, or even people that get this game do not realize that once they get 

it, as I understand the manufacturer of this game, Rockstar Games, put in 

two codes, one dealing with explicit sex, and another, I guess, with 

explicit violence that is not part of the game. 

And it turns out that somebody in Holland put on the Internet, Mr. 

Severson, a way so that a child can get that connection so that he or she 

can go into Grand Theft Auto and, by gosh, can get into this whole 

scene, and Mr. and Mrs. America have no idea about it, and yet it is easy 

to go to your Web site. And you might stop selling the game, but today I 

can go on your Web site and get this, and I can get anybody to agree, 

and, bingo, they got the game, and then they go to the other to get this. 

So we are not singling out, Mr. Lowenstein, like you talked about the 

idea that one movie would make a barrel of apples bad. This is more 

talking about how you control so that the parent has control of what the 

child sees. 

Ms. Vance, how many games a year are there brand new? 

MS. VANCE. How many games? 

MR. STEARNS. How many video games are there every year? We 

were told there might be as many as 12,000 total games you rate. 
131

MS. VANCE. We rate over 1,100 games a year. Over the course of 

the time since 1994, I think we have rated something in the vicinity of 

12,000. 

MR. STEARNS. So over the timeframe. Now, how many of those 

games have you actually played? 

MS. VANCE. How many have I personally played, or does our-- 

MR. STEARNS. Let me ask you this: How big is your board? 

MS. VANCE. Our rater pool is about 35 members at the given time. 

Those are the people that actually assign the ratings. 

MR. STEARNS. You are the one person on this board, and then you 

subcontract out to raters to do this? 

MS. VANCE. We have a pool of part-time raters who come in. 

MR. STEARNS. So there are really not 12 members on this board. 

You are the one person on the board; is that correct? 

MS. VANCE. No, no, no. I am president of the organization. We 

report to, as any self-regulatory body, we have a board of directors 

composed of publishers of games, so it is a self-regulatory environment, 

and I report to that board. 

MR. STEARNS. But I understand from staff there is really no board 

per se. This perception that there is a board like a board of directors at 

General Electric, you do not really have a board. 

MS. VANCE. We do have a board of directors, absolutely, that is 

made up of the game publishers. 

MR. STEARNS. There is not really a board that sits down and says, 

okay, as Dr. Thompson says, we are going to play these games out 

ourselves to determine the content and the advisability. 

MS. VANCE. No. As my testimony indicated, we rely on publishers 

to fully disclose to us. Our raters-- 

MR. STEARNS. Who are these publishers? 

MS. VANCE. The game publishers. 

MR. STEARNS. Do you think they would have a conflict of interest in 

rating their own thing? 

MS. VANCE. They do not rate the games. They submit the content 

to us. We have a pool of independent raters who are all adults. They 

have no ties to the industry whatsoever. They come in for about 2 to 3 

hours every other week. 

MR. STEARNS. Let me ask you this question. I’m sorry for 

interrupting. Of the 12,000 games, how many were rated “Adult” out of 

those 12,000 games, 20? I was told maybe only 20. 

MS. VANCE. That is how many stuck. What happens if we assign an 

“AO” rating, which is far more than the 20, what will happen is because 

of the limited distribution that that product-- 
132

MR. STEARNS. But historically you have only rated--out of the 

12,000 games, only 20 have been rated-- 

MS. VANCE. That is not true. We have assigned an “AO” rating 

more than 20 times. The problem is-- 

MR. STEARNS. Twenty-two? How many? 

MS. VANCE. I do not know the exact number, but I can tell you it is 

significantly more than 20. 

MR. STEARNS. Is it under 100? 

MS. VANCE. Yes, it is under 100. 

MR. STEARNS. Under 50? 

MS. VANCE. It is under 100. But the point being that companies 

have the option of making changes to the product and resubmitting it to 

get a different rating, because I said in my testimony, the Council of 

Manufacturers will not publish “AO” games on their platforms, which 

limits the market, and many of the retailers, including Wal-Mart, will not 

carry “AO” games. So companies do have the option of changing the 

product if they get an “AO” rating assignment project. 

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, you made some great 

recommendations about asking the board to play each game, and I do not 

have a feeling that they played each game. Your other recommendation 

is transparency in the criteria for assigning this. I do not see that. And 

your last thing is that you want to have a real peer review involved. 

We talk about a company that says, we are making $100 million a 

year, then you have an outside auditor come in and tell you if you are 

doing that, but there is nobody that is doing this. 

So those three are very powerful, and Congressman Murphy made a 

great point. I just do not agree when you say these children are not 

impacted at all by this violence where 61 people are killed an hour or 1 a 

minute. That has got to have an impact, and I think what is so disturbing 

is I could go to the Wal-Mart site today, and I could get this Grand Theft 

Auto, and there are going to be four versions of it. I can get all four, and 

I can then go to this other site and get this, when this occurred that you 

could get this site to go in and get this hugely explicit sex scene, and the 

poor parents would not even know. So I think what we do have here is 

more of a trying to understand it, as Dr. Thompson has outlined. 

With that, my time has expired. 

Ms. Schakowsky. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the 

witnesses. 

I want to ask Ms. Parnes, were any of the stores that were checked 

by your mystery shoppers Wal-Marts? 

MS. PARNES. We did; yes, we did. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Did you break out the results by retail? 
133

MS. PARNES. I cannot break it out. I do not believe that we are able 

to break it out by specific retailer, but I think we can by large store and 

smaller. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Can you tell me that? 

MS. PARNES. The national stores asked the child’s age in 55 percent 

of the instances. The local and regional in 35 percent of the instances. 

And basically that is what we found across the board, that national 

retailers-- 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Did better? 

MS. PARNES. Did better than local and regional. They posted 

information about ratings about half the time, while local and regional 

outlets did it less than a quarter of the time. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Severson, do you think that clicking an I agree box is enough to 

ensure that teens or younger are not buying “M”-rated games without 

their parents’ consent? 

MR. SEVERSON. That is a limitation of the Internet, and the vast 

majority of children under 17 do not have a credit card or would need a 

credit card from their parents, which would imply consent on that. But I 

think that is something we need to look at to see what is available to help 

improve that. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am wondering if you truly “make every effort 

to be a responsible retailer and take the role very seriously.” Have you 

considered stopping selling “M”-rated games on line? 

MR. SEVERSON. Currently we continue to sell those, and we 

continue to try and be responsible and sell those to adults and make sure 

that that is the case, because these are adult games that are marketed to 

adults, and we want to sell them to adults. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. But Wal-Mart did make a decision that it was 

not okay to sell music with sexually explicit lyrics, but it is okay to sell 

explicitly violent video games, explicit and violent. 

MR. SEVERSON. That is a current music policy that we have in our 

store. And the current music and video game policy that we have in our 

store is that we will not sell those videos games to minors. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I understand, but you have stopped selling 

music. 

MR. SEVERSON. No, we never started selling. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. You do not sell, fine. 

Is somehow violence on these games and sexual violence more 

family friendly than sexually explicit lyrics? 

MR. SEVERSON. No, but we just sell those to adults. 
134

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. No, you do not just sell them to adults. Your 

stores were still among those where only 45 percent you asked whether 

or not--and teens can, in fact, just click on a box. 

MR. SEVERSON. I cannot speak to the individual store results of the 

survey, and I am not suggesting that the policy is perfect. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. It is far less than perfect; would you not agree 

with that? 

MR. SEVERSON. I think there is room for improvement on that, I 

agree. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. That is not an I think, that is a fact. 

MR. SEVERSON. Yes, I think that in our stores we perform better 

than the average that is being put out there. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Do you have evidence of that? I would be 

interested in it if you do. 

MR. SEVERSON. I do not have data that proves that. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Buckleitner, you said in your statement--

and I looked at the pictures that KB Toys sells “M”-rated games on line, 

and the toys in that picture are right next to each other. Do you think this 

is something that the Entertainment Software Association should 

condone, and have you found other toy stores that are selling “M”-rated 

games? 

DR. BUCKLEITNER. I have. I do not have as much problem with 

Wal-Mart selling these because they sell ammo. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. They sell a lot of that stuff, so that is okay. 

DR. BUCKLEITNER. I am just telling you it is not a place for children 

specifically. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I hear you. Toy stores. 

DR. BUCKLEITNER. They sell a lot of things that you would not want 

your kid to deal with. I think if you look at the book rack, it is the same 

thing. You will see books you do not want your kids reading. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. In toy stores? 

DR. BUCKLEITNER. In toy stores there is this confusion, specifically 

like Toys R Us and KB Toys, where you are seeing “M”-rated games, 

and to me this is a complete mismatch. It doesn’t belong. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Vance, this issue of the methodology, that 

Dr. Thompson’s methodology is flawed, what is wrong with it? 

MS. VANCE. Well, we have several issues with her methodology. 

One primary issue is that she uses very different criteria than we have 

used in assigning content descriptors. Our criteria is very plain and 

public, which is our raters are instructed to assign content descriptors 

based on what they think triggers a particular rating or what they think in 

the context of that rating category parents are going to be most interested 

in. 
135

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am running out of time. What I wanted to ask 

is if you would provide for our committee a detailed report on what 

about her methodology is scientifically questionable. 

MS. VANCE. Well actually, attached to my written testimony is an 

appendix that does address many of the issues we have with her study. 

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. We will look at that and see if that meets the 

question that I really wanted to see. Okay. Thank you very much. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Mrs. Blackburn. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. I thank the Chairman for the time. 

Dr. Thompson, you mention game publishers. How many game 

publishers do we have in the country; do you know? 

DR. THOMPSON. I do not know exactly. There are large publishers, 

and then there are also some smaller publishers. I think that is a question 

really for Mr. Lowenstein. He would be the person who would know 

that. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Mr. Lowenstein, do you know the total number 

of publishers? 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. I do not know the total number, but I would say 

there are approximately 25 to 30 publishers of which probably 10 or so 

are responsible for probably 70 or 80 percent of all the sales. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Are those domestic or global companies, or do 

you know? 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. Both. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Dr. Thompson, back to you again. Do you think 

that ESRB is objective or subjective in these ratings? 

DR. THOMPSON. Well, I think that what the ESRB does is it hands to 

raters a package of material which we do not know how they then come 

up with their ratings. So that is subjective. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. So they subjectively select the material that they 

give to the raters. 

DR. THOMPSON. And the raters subjectively review it. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Ms. Vance, let me come to you for just a 

moment. Let us see. Are you a for-profit or not-for-profit entity? How 

are you structured? 

MS. VANCE. Not for profit. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. You are structured as a not-for-profit. So that 

means you would have members of your board or your association, and 

some of these publishing companies would be members of your board; is 

that correct. 

MS. VANCE. Members of our board are members of the publishing 

community, yes. 
136

MRS. BLACKBURN. How many members of your board do you 

have? 

MS. VANCE. Approximately 15. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Fifteen members of your board who are game 

publishers. 

MS. VANCE. That is correct. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. U.S. companies or foreign companies? 

MS. VANCE. They are U.S. companies, but some of them are global 

companies, but it is the U.S. operation. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. So U.S. companies that are members of your 

board, and you are a not-for-profit entity. 

MS. VANCE. We are. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. So then how do you receive your operating 

funds? Do people pay for a rating? 

MS. VANCE. They do just like in the film industry. Companies who 

want their films-- 

MRS. BLACKBURN. So they are paying you for a rating of their 

product, and they are choosing what they give to you to rate that game 

by. Am I saying this correct? 

MS. VANCE. That is correct. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. And you do not see a problem with this? 

MS. VANCE. If they do not disclose product to us, there are serious 

consequences for doing so. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times have you brought somebody 

before the board for inappropriate actions or for nondisclosure? 

MS. VANCE. We have an enforcement system that runs through -- 

MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times have you brought somebody 

before the board? 

MS. VANCE. We issue numerous enforcement-- 

MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times -- 

MS. VANCE. I don’t know the number. I would suspect it is over 

100 on an annual basis. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. That is fine. 

Do you rate freeware that independent designers produce and freely 

distribute on the Internet? 

MS. VANCE. Typically not. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Do you see a need to rate things that are going 

to go on the Internet, considering Dr. Walsh’s comments about more of 

this is going to be an on-line process? 

MS. VANCE. We would love to get submissions from anybody who 

wants their product to be rated. As long as it is a game, we will rate it. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Do they have to be a member of your board to 

submit to you and get a rating? 
137

MS. VANCE. Absolutely not. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. What would you think about having one rating 

system for all electronic media or all video games or all movies? 

MS. VANCE. I do not have a fundamental problem with the universal 

rating system. I do not see anything fundamentally broken with ours. 

There is fairly high awareness in use of the system that we have today. I 

certainly would not want to water down our system. We have a very 

strong and detailed system, and I would want to keep it that way. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. All righty. And your board was created in 1994 

by who? 

MS. VANCE. By the Entertainment Software Association, by the 

industry. It is a self-regulatory body. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. All righty. And what would be your opinion of 

a law requiring age verification for sexually explicit video games? 

MS. VANCE. We do not have a position on laws about regulating the 

video game industry. We do support retailer policies, and we encourage 

retailers to post signage about those policies. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. Do you have an idea of what the total revenue 

generated by the “Adult-Only” video game industry is every year? 

MS. VANCE. I do not. 

MRS. BLACKBURN. You do not. Thank you for your time. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pitts. 

MR. PITTS. Mr. Severson, I understand you have to go. I would like 

to ask you a couple of questions. I am glad Wal-Mart has a policy to 

make sure kids cannot buy “M”-rated games like Grand Theft Auto, but 

even if you have a perfect system for making sure you only sell games 

like this to adults, why would you want to sell them at all? 

MR. SEVERSON. The nature of our business is that in a lot of 

different products that we sell, there is someone who is against that. We 

sell Bibles in our stores, and there are people who are against that. 

MR. PITTS. Why would you want to sell a game that makes a sport 

of dealing drugs or killing police officers with chainsaws or flying 

passenger jets into skyscrapers? Why would you not have a policy that 

you will not sell any video that role plays cop killing or terrorism or 

torture or drug dealing or prostitution or murder? 

MR. SEVERSON. Those are difficult questions, and I do not 

personally condone all of the things that happen on this-- 

MR. PITTS. Well, who in your company does? 

MR. SEVERSON. We try to purchase products that our customers 

want to purchase. That is what we do as a business. There are a number 

of game players that are adults who choose to want to play different 
138

games, and we want to be able to sell those to the adults that want to play 

them. 

I am a father of six children, four who are teenagers, and personally 

my children do not play those games, and as a parent I enforce that. We 

try to have the same information to parents in our stores to allow them to 

make those decisions and have that enforcement at the cash registers to 

prevent the children from doing that as well. 

MR. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lowenstein, a couple of questions. What is the industry doing to 

protect the children? I mentioned parents who do not monitor what the 

kids are playing. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. Congressman, I wish it was in our power to 

protect all the children by coming up with ways to mandate good 

parenting. There are a lot of social ills in this country that are beyond the 

capacity of our industry to solve. Our focus has been on providing 

information for parents who are prepared to take responsibility. 

I fully understand that we live in a culture where parenting is 

difficult, where there are absentee parents and so forth, but at the end of 

the day, as an industry our capacity is to provide information and tools 

and let people know about the information and the tools. We have 

endeavored to do so. We will continue to try to enrich that and 

strengthen that system. 

MR. PITTS. But you do not feel you have a responsibility towards 

at-risk children? There are lots of at-risk children in society. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. There certainly are a lot of at-risk children for a 

lot of things, and, again, if I knew as an industry how we could uniquely 

help those children, I would certainly look into it. But if those parents 

are not in the picture, I do not know what we can do. 

We support the retail enforcement. We support education and 

empowerment. I do not know how those kids are getting the games. The 

FTC has reported that 83 percent of the time the parents are involved in 

the purchase and rental of games. So chances are if Grand Theft Auto is 

in the home, Mom and Dad bought it. Now I do not know how we fix 

that problem as an industry other than continuing to focus on education 

and empowerment. 

MR. PITTS. Well, one way you can do it is not contribute towards it 

by offering that kind of a video. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. Well, we are a mass-market entertainment 

industry, and as I said in my opening statement, we are no different from 

the book industry, the music industry, or the film industry. There is a 

wide range of product, some of which I may not personally particularly 

care for, but it is protected speech, and it is not within my power at the 
139

end of the day to compel someone or restrict somebody from producing a 

constitutionally protected product whether I like it or not. 

MR. PITTS. Thank you. 

Dr. Walsh, you mentioned the need for having one source of ratings 

for all media. Would you expand on the need for that a little bit? 

MR. WALSH. Most of our work is with parents. Last year I gave 

over 200 workshops and speeches to PTA groups, school groups, and 

educators across the country, and one of the things that parents often say, 

“why isn’t there just one rating system? Why do there have to be three? 

It would be so much easier. The alphabet soup is confusing.” 

I think if the end user of the rating system is the parent, then I think 

we should be listening to what they want and not what the industry wants 

to do. 

MR. PITTS. And the evidence that you have received from talking to 

parents is that there is some confusion in their minds as to all the 

different types of ratings systems? 

MR. WALSH. Absolutely. In spite of the market surveys that are 

done, we talk to parents, and if you ask parents what does the different 

rating system mean, most of them cannot give that answer. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. Congressman, can I just add one thing to that? 

MR. PITTS. Yes, please. 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. The Kaiser Foundation, which is not affiliated 

with this industry, one of the most respected research groups in the 

country, reported a year ago that when they asked parents whether they 

wanted universal ratings, an overwhelming majority said they didn’t. 

My personal view, by the way, is that I think it is a wonderful goal, and I 

personally would sit down with anybody to see how you could develop 

such a rating system because it is obvious that a single rating system 

makes everybody’s life easier. The devil is in the details. 

DR. THOMPSON. I would like to volunteer to sit down with you and 

talk about that. 

MR. PITTS. Dr. Thompson, with regard to the games based on 

movies, should the ratings correspond? If they do not, does this add to 

confusion? Would you expand on that? 

DR. THOMPSON. In our studies we have observed a few examples of 

games and movies that have been cross-marketed. This is also 

something the Federal Trade Commission reports have raised an issue 

on. But, for example, we observed the Enter the Matrix video game, 

which was rated “Teen”, was cross-marketed very heavily with the 

Matrix movies, which were rated R. And in the other direction, the 

Chronicles of Riddick is another example. 

I think the key issue is that parents really need good information 

about what is in the media products that they are trying desperately to 
140

make sure they are consuming responsibly, and we need to make sure 

that they are getting good information, and that the information does not 

put them into a compromised position from the get-go. 

MR. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Matheson, I will ask a few questions, and then I 

will let you have it. 

Mr. Lowenstein, what would it take to make an “Adult-Only” rating 

on Grand Theft Auto? What more would you have to do besides--Mr. 

Pitts just mentioned all the things that the game does. What, in your 

mind personally, would it take to tell Ms. Vance we need an “Adult 

Only”? This is a little bit asking you out of sort of your subjective, but 

how much more do you have to do? 

MR. LOWENSTEIN. You are right. It is a very subjective question, 

and that is part of the fundamental issue when it comes to any ratings 

system is ratings are by definition subjective. We all bring our own 

values. It is a pluralistic society and a pluralistic culture. So what it 

takes for me is almost, with all due respect, irrelevant, because my 

standards may not be reflective of the rest of the user base. Am I 

ducking the question? I do not have an answer for you. 

MR. STEARNS. I understand. 

Ms. Vance, what would you say? Without the hidden programs that 

are coming with the explicit sex and violence, it is already killing 

emergency people who are trying to come help, it is killing cops, and it is 

killing civilians. How much more would you need, in your mind, to 

make it an “Adult Only”? 

MS. VANCE. Well, again, it is a subjective call. No question about 

it, Grand Theft Auto is a very high--our definition of an “AO” game 

typically requires prolonged scenes of intense violence. In other words, 

something like a torture scene and player control may add an element to 

torture that takes it into a different realm. You could have obviously 

sexually explicit content that would take it into an “AO” category. 

MR. STEARNS. How about taking a chainsaw to somebody? That is 

in here. That does not count? 

MS. VANCE. It depends on how explicit it is, but that could qualify. 

It depends on the depiction. 

MR. STEARNS. In this case there is blood everywhere. In the video 

we showed here from Grand Theft, it was pretty clear it was pretty 

explicit, but that would not make it. 

MS. VANCE. I would ask you, you have seen plenty of R-rated 

movies before with plenty of pretty graphic content in that, and it is the 

difference between an R and an NC-17. It is subjective. 

MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, for you. Can you give a better 

definition of what would push Grand Theft Auto to “Adult Only”, or is it 
141

something that we just cannot even come up with a definition in your 

mind? 

DR. THOMPSON. We have not actually studied the small subset of 

“AO” games to figure out what are the typical characteristics of those 

games. But the reality is that when we do study games within an 

individual age-based category, there is a wide range of variability with 

some games that are at the top, and we do find games that we would say 

might overlap in that gray space. I think it is hard to say right now. 

MR. STEARNS. Ms. Parnes, how is the Federal Trade Commission 

going to regulate hidden programs? You buy X, Y, Z game, and it might 

be to a child under 17, and yet there are connections to the Internet for 

hidden programs that can get you into a whole new--how are you going 

to stop that? What is your agency going to do? 

MS. PARNES. I think that one thing is that case that we brought 

against Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. We are sending a message to the 

industry that there is certain conduct -- 

MR. STEARNS. But do you think an $11,000 fine is going to be 

sufficient? 

MS. PARNES. Well, we can obtain an $11,000 fine per violation for 

an order violation. And it could be $11,000 per day for the amount of 

time for the violation. 

MR. STEARNS. Is that what it is today? 

MS. PARNES. It is per violation. And you can define it by per day, 

perhaps per sale. 

MR. STEARNS. I see. 

What assurance do you have from Take Two and Rockstar Games 

that they will not include hidden content? I mean, you can’t do anything. 

You just wait until it already occurs, and by the time it occurs, for 

example, we understand at Wal-Mart they sold over 5 million copies of 

Grand Theft Auto before they stopped it. I mean, aren’t you behind the 

curve? Is there anything that you can suggest that we do here? 

MS. PARNES. Well, in some respects that is just a function of our 

law enforcement. When we are enforcing orders, we think we are 

actually not behind the curve. We think we are ahead of it in this case 

because we have laid down the marker for what they need to do. 

MR. STEARNS. Are you investigating the Oblivion video game for 

violence? Do you do any investigation at all pre, like this Oblivion video 

game? Do you investigate that at all? 

MS. PARNES. We can’t comment on whether or not we are 

conducting an investigation. That would be nonpublic information. 

MR. STEARNS. But you are capable of investigating something 

before you hear about it. 

MS. PARNES. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. 
142

MR. STEARNS. Mr. Murphy. 

MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

I have some questions for Ms. Vance. Do you have children? 

MS. VANCE. Yes, I do. 

MR. MURPHY. How old are they? 

MS. VANCE. Fourteen and twenty-one. 

MR. MURPHY. I just want to make sure I understand this. So a 

publisher of a game, they give a list of content. That is how that 

information comes across? 

MS. VANCE. They fill out a form, and they provide us with a 

videotape and a script and lyrics sheets usually. 

MR. MURPHY. And then from that, that is handed over to what you 

called a group of people recruited out of New York City. 

MS. VANCE. Well, it first gets scrubbed by our internal staff to make 

sure that everything is there and that the videotape encompasses 

everything in the written materials. 

MR. MURPHY. But they are not actually playing the game. So these 

are New Yorkers, they don’t actually play the game, but it is a list of 

content. 

MS. VANCE. They look at the videotape, is what the raters actually 

get. 

MR. MURPHY. It is not actually playing the game, Correct? 

MS. VANCE. They don’t play the game. 

MR. MURPHY. Thank you. 

So they rate the game without playing it based upon this system; that 

is, the SRB is not an independent board, but they are part of the game 

industry. Is that correct? 

MS. VANCE. That is correct. 

MR. MURPHY. Then what I see here is you said that three out of four 

games purchased are purchased by adults, correct? 

MS. VANCE. It is actually more than that. It is more like 9 out of 10. 

MR. MURPHY. You said three out of four. Okay. 

MS. VANCE. Three out of four regularly use the ratings. 

MR. MURPHY. You said 83 percent of adults paid attention to those 

ratings. 

MS. VANCE. Eighty-three percent are aware, and 74 percent 

regularly use it either most of the time or all the time. 

MR. MURPHY. So as I am trying to do some math here, so 75 

percent of the time they may use it, but that 75 percent of the use, only 

83 percent are aware. So it started with 83 percent, and 75 percent of 

them are aware. 

MS. VANCE. That is incorrect. No; 75 percent regularly use it. 
143

MR. MURPHY. We are down to 65 percent. And then of the games 

that are in people’s homes, parents-- 

MS. VANCE. Seventy-five percent out of the whole base. It is not 75 

percent-- 

MR. MURPHY. You said three out of four people are aware. 

MS. VANCE. No; 83 percent are aware, and 74 percent regularly use 

it, which means most of the time or all the time. 

MR. MURPHY. Fine. Eighty-three percent are aware. And out of 

those that are aware, 74 percent-- 

MS. VANCE. It is not 74 percent out of 83. 

MR. MURPHY. It is clearly not all. Let me continue on here. 

Then out of that, not all parents watch those games. So we have 

people who the publisher provides the content. People out of New York 

are supposed to represent the rest of the Nation. I love New Yorkers, but 

I don’t think they represent the whole Nation. They are basing their 

ratings on some rating scale that the industry has provided, paid for by 

the industry, not independent. Not all parents are aware of it. Of those 

parents who are aware, not all pay attention to it when they purchase the 

game. And of those who paid attention and are aware and purchased it, 

not all of them watch the game. And even if they do watch the game, not 

all of them see all the content, because sometimes there is hidden 

content. And because no one has watched the whole video that has rated 

them and parents aren’t sitting down for hours, they can’t possibly know 

all the things in there. 

Now, let me ask you this. Would you accept that sort of system--

now, I am concerned as a psychologist and as a parent that there are 

effects here. And I don’t know if you agree that there are effects of 

video game repeated use with perhaps violent or sexually content games, 

but I am concerned that it has an effect on a child. Now, let me ask you 

this. Let us say 75 percent of the time, would you accept--maybe you 

call it a babysitter service to provide babysitting or a nanny for your kids. 

Would you accept if they said that 75 percent we are correct on screening 

these people for whether or not they are pedophiles? Would you accept 

that rating? 

MS. VANCE. I am not clear what you are asking. 

MR. MURPHY. I am asking you--you are setting the bar down pretty 

low, it seems to me, as a parent, to a pretty low number. You are saying, 

I thought someone from Wal-Mart said that a pretty good number, 69 

percent of the time, people adhere in their staff. My point is-- 

MS. VANCE. We can’t force parents to use the system. Is that what 

you are getting at? 

MR. MURPHY. I am asking you this. What is acceptable? The 

system is the publishers provide you the information on some rating 
144

scale, summarized and reviewed by a number of people who may or may 

not see the game, providing a scoring system that is from the industry 

itself, and that parents themselves may or may not use this system. My 

point is that you start to chip away and whittle this down. And yet, 

again, I believe that repetitive viewing, interactive, of violent and 

sexually explicit video games can have an impact upon children’s 

behavior. 

MS. VANCE. That is why they are rated “M” for “Mature” for 17 and 

older. 

MR. MURPHY. But you say the parents may not see these. And my 

point is--and I don’t believe they have a direct causal effect on every 

child. I mean, that clearly doesn’t, just the same as not every person who 

smokes cigarettes automatically gets cancer. But it does have an 

interactive effect based upon the child’s temperament, personality, 

repetitive behaviors, things like that. 

What I am concerned about is I wish there was more alarm. I wish 

there was more efforts. I am pleased that there are going to be some ads 

or there are ads at stores, hey, pay attention, folks, that are increasing 

parents’ awareness, because ultimately I am concerned about parent 

awareness. I just don’t think the industry is doing enough to let parents 

know. 

And as we are going down this, the reason I say those numbers is if 

you went through this same kind of rating, if the police said, this is how 

well we screen pedophiles and whether or not they are going to live next 

door to you, this is how well we screen babysitters of whether or not they 

can be left alone with your children, because since your child is left alone 

with this game for a long period of time, I don’t think you would accept 

that. 

MS. VANCE. Well, this is content that is finite, that it is not 

controlled in terms of what we rate, it is not controlled by other people. 

It is finite content that we are asking the-- 

MR. MURPHY. I don’t understand what that means. All I know is as 

a person who has spent my career working with children who have 

serious problems, and many of them aggressive or violent behavior, 

disturbed children, who, whether it is the game that attracts them or they 

are attracted to the game, there is an interactive effect. And I just don’t 

believe the industry is using enough with this system. I think there are 

recommendations that you would have people rate this who actually play 

the games, watch children in the games, and have a reliable, valid system 

of reviewing those. I think that is very important. And I would 

recommend industry pursue that as well, because as a parent and as a 

psychologist, I really don’t find that this is an unbiased system. And my 

concern is, is that your comments and criticisms of Dr. Thompson and 
145

Walsh and others about this, I think they have got some 

recommendations you ought to look at. And rather than pooh-poohing it, 

I think you ought to look at it. 

But I want to ask this final question. Do video games repetitively 

played with violent content affect the behavior of some children? 

MS. VANCE. I think the research is inconclusive. But I think the 

point is that parents need to be actively monitoring. 

MR. MURPHY. I didn’t ask about parents. I asked about this. And it 

seems to me-- 

MS. VANCE. Is the material inappropriate, some of the violent and 

sexual material inappropriate? Absolutely. And that is why it is rated as 

such. 

MR. MURPHY. Well, I don’t agree. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your patience. 

I think we had overall a balanced hearing, and I appreciate all of you. 

We have had to reschedule a couple of times and so forth. So I want to 

thank all of you for coming. 

By unanimous consent, I will put Mr. Matheson’s opening statement 

as a part of record for him. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Jim Matheson follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, thank you for allowing me to 

participate in today’s hearing. Most importantly, thank you for holding today's 

Subcommittee hearing on Explicit Video Games—it’s an incredibly important topic. 

As a parent and a legislator, I really worry about what our kids can access without 

parental consent. I believe that parents should be the first line of defense when it comes 

to children. But, I recognize that parents can’t be with their children at all times. I think 

there is a reasonable place for government and the industry to work together to help 

families. 

For my part, I’ve introduced legislation with my friend and colleague Rick Renzi of 

Arizona called the Video Game Ratings Enforcement Act. I think that it presents a 

simple approach to ensuring that kids can no longer purchase adult-rated content. It also 

keeps the government out of the business of assessing content by using the industry’s 

own ratings system. 

Simply put, this bill would require all retailers to check identification for any 

children trying to buy or rent Mature-rated or Adults Only-rated games. It also requires 

that ratings system explanations be posted in stores. However, the Video Games Ratings 

Enforcement Act does not prevent a parent from buying any available game. It only 

helps to ensure that children can only access age appropriate content with parental 

permission. 

This legislation presents a reasonable approach for retailers and manufacturers, 

because families deserve real ratings enforcement. Today, video games are by far the 

most popular activity for kids and most games are probably fine for anyone to play. 
146

However, given that 190 million video game units were sold in 2005 here in the U.S. 

there’s room for concern as to what kids can actually buy at the store. 

A 2004 Federal Trade Commission report found that 69% of unaccompanied 13-16 

year-olds in the study were able to purchase "M" rated video games from retailers. The 

National Institute on Media and the Family published its tenth annual MediaWise Video 

Game Report Card late last year and it included the results of a survey of more than 600 

students ranging from 4th-12th grade, conducted in classrooms. Almost half (45%) said 

they have bought M-rated games and 7 out of 10 children reported playing M-rated 

games. 

And let’s not kid ourselves about some of the content in Mature-rated and Adults 

Only-rated games—high scores are often earned by players who commit “virtual” 

murder, assault and rape. Adults may be ok to choose what they want to play and what 

they want to buy, but it’s not ok for 13 year olds to be prime consumers of adult-rated 

games, in my opinion. 

I worry about how many Mature-rated and Adults-Only rated games are being 

purchased by young children every single day in this country. As lawmakers, I think 

almost all of us are very comfortable insisting that retailers verify the age of people who 

want to purchase alcohol or cigarettes because we’ve decided as a society that those 

products are only appropriate for adults. I know that as a parent, I’m glad that retailers 

help me by performing this service. I don’t doubt that at one point in time, retailers 

weren’t thrilled about point of sale restrictions for alcohol or tobacco but I’m willing to 

bet that almost every retailer would now say that it’s a valuable service. 

In the case of video games, the industry that makes these immensely popular video 

games has acknowledged on its own that some games—many of which are best sellers—

are really only for adults. So why is it unreasonable for Congress to insist that retailers 

only sell these games to adults? 

If a parent chooses to purchase a game for their child and they are fine with the 

content, then that of course is their right as a parent. Marketers and game manufacturers 

do not have the right to sell to kids just because kids are willing to buy the products. 

Kids aren’t expected to know what is right for them in the long run—that’s where parents 

come in and that’s where I think Congress should be—on the side of parents trying to 

make sure that important choices are made at home, not at the store. 

I acknowledge that some retailers are already trying to do the right thing and I 

commend those companies for proactively looking out for American families. I welcome 

the opportunity to discuss these issues at today’s hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
147

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY CROSSAN R. ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT 

MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
148
149
150
151
152
153

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY CYNTHIA MERIFIELD TRIPODI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PAUSE PARENT PLAY
154
155
156
157
158
159

○