Game over for Unauthorized AI Performances: The Sag-Aftra Video Game Strike

By: Quintin DiStefano Video game characters may be fictional, but the actors portraying them are real people. Every line of dialogue and every swing of the sword is crafted by voice and motion-capture actors whose performances bring the characters to life. When you feel a chill from a sudden jump scare or a villain’s menacing threat, you’re reacting to the performance, not the pixels. Now, what if those performances were no longer human, but replicated by artificial intelligence? Would they feel the same? In recent years, the gaming industry began replacing actors with artificial intelligence, though not in the way gamers might expect. Instead of generating character performances entirely with AI, studios used AI systems to modify recordings of real human performances. Assuming full ownership over the recordings, companies neither gained actors’ consent nor compensated actors for the additional value of their performances, ultimately sparking the 2024-2025 SAG-AFTRA “Video Game Strike.” SAG-AFTRA, the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, launched the Video Game Strike on July 26, 2024, after eighteen months of failed negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement. The sticking point? The union demanded clear protections to ensure that recordings of actors’ performances could not be copied without consent and compensation. On the other side, major video game companies, including Activision, Electronic Arts, and Warner Bros., refused to concede their unrestricted right to this practice as they asserted ownership over the recordings. The strike became a pivotal tug-of-war between corporations and workers over the future of creative labor in the gaming industry. While the strike was underway, California’s legislation passed AB 2602 and AB 1836 in September 2024, prohibiting media companies from using AI to replicate actors’ performances without their consent. Taking effect in January 2025, the statutes specifically require that contractual provisions reserving a company’s right to create a digital replica of an actor’s performance must include a thorough description of the digital replica’s purpose. Furthermore, an actor signing such a contract must have adequate legal and union representation for their informed consent to be enforceable on such a provision. These protections cover both living and deceased performers, with estates authorized to act on behalf of the latter. This legal backing strengthened SAG-AFTRA’s bargaining position and helped pave the way for a new collective bargaining agreement in July 2025. Dubbed the “Interactive Media Video Game Agreement,” its terms mirror California’s new legislation requiring disclosure, informed consent, and representation. The union also secured the right for actors to suspend consent for digital replicas created during the strike. Compensation for an actor’s digital replica consent is not specifically provided, but the requirements for representation ensure that negotiations will be fairer, thus likely to yield more lucrative pay structures. Now, video game companies will need to devote significant legal resources to understanding the agreement’s boundaries and ensuring compliance, as digital replica restrictions were not the only victory for SAG-AFTRA. The Interactive Media Video Game Agreement also secured a 15.17% increase in minimum performer compensation, annual 3% raises for actors through 2027, and employers will now contribute more to performers’ health and retirement funds. These gains illustrate the union’s power to win enhanced protections against unauthorized digital replicas and substantial improvements in pay and benefits. Such concessions were possible only because performers held the line during the strike, rather than accepting AI as an inevitable fate. Together, California and SAG-AFTRA have trailblazed a path toward reshaping the landscape of performers’ digital rights, and several other U.S. states have followed suit. New York, Florida, Illinois, and Texas have all enacted or proposed legislation that largely mirrors California’s AB 2602 and AB 1836. However, regardless of state legislation, the Interactive Media Video Game Agreement applies nationwide. This means that gaming studios cannot shield themselves by incorporating or conducting business in states without comparable laws. The victory for SAG-AFTRA is clear: actors now have enforceable rights over digital replicas of their performances, and the industry has been forced to recognize that human creativity cannot be casually replaced by an algorithm. These improvements mark a turning point in the fight over AI in creative fields. Recordings can no longer be treated as mere data, but rather as a representation of an actor’s spirited performance that requires informed consent to be replicated. The new collective bargaining agreement, alongside state legislation, sets a clear precedent that innovation and cheaper creative labor cannot override human labor rights. Even in a rapidly evolving technological landscape, the law remains committed to protecting what is most central to the video game industry: human creativity. Yet, that landscape will continue to shift, and the questions ahead are unsettling. As AI grows more advanced, will video game companies abandon real actors entirely in favor of fully computer-generated or AI-driven performances? Companies like Activision and Electronic Arts may decide that the path of least resistance is to avoid using human actors altogether. Conversely, if legal protections continue to expand, what qualifies as a creator or a performance? The law may have overreached, leaving companies to pay extra fees and navigate complex negotiations for something as simple as altering a character’s grunt or laugh. The strike demonstrates that the law can adapt, but it also reveals the slow pace of change: video game actors waited over two years for their rights to be affirmed. Such a delay highlights the need for proactive measures to ensure that technological development does not undermine creative labor but enhances it. Moving forward, legislators, unions, and companies must continue balancing technological innovation with the protection of creative labor. If they fail, they risk a future in which the very heart of gaming—human creativity—becomes optional. Student Bio: Quintin DiStefano is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. He is a staff member for the Journal of High Technology Law. Quintin received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with concentrations in Legal Studies and Leadership from Babson College in 2021. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.