Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

  • Source path: knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md
  • Source ID: CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS
  • Edit this page | Suggest a change

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 2
  • Relationships: 3
  • Research debt items: 2

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

Summary

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011), held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection and that a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors did not survive strict scrutiny. The case is often referred to in briefs and biographies as EMA v. Brown.

Verified Facts

  • The case citation is 564 U.S. 786 (2011), No. 08-1448.1
  • The case was decided on June 27, 2011.1
  • Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, brought a preenforcement challenge to a California law restricting violent video game sales or rentals to minors.1
  • The Supreme Court held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection because they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and medium-specific features.1
  • The Court held that California could not create a new category of content-based regulation permissible only for speech directed at children.1
  • Because the Act restricted the content of protected speech, California had to satisfy strict scrutiny; the Court held it failed that standard.1
  • The Ninth Circuit judgment affirming the injunction against enforcement was affirmed.1

Historical Context

The case arose from a California statute that imposed civil penalties for selling or renting violent video games to minors. Industry groups challenged the law before enforcement. The Supreme Court treated the dispute as a test of whether violent video games could be regulated like historically unprotected categories of speech.

Significance for Software Companies

The decision is foundational for treating interactive software — including games — as protected expression. It limits state attempts to restrict access to software products based on violent content and reinforces strict scrutiny for content-based regulation of digital media.

Relationships

Sources

  1. SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (Cornell LII).

Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):

Research Debt

  • Add Jenner & Block or party briefs documenting Katie Fallow's role if publicly available.
  • Corroborate attorney participation claims with docket or secondary reporting beyond biographies.

Document metadata

  • Decision date: 2011-06-27
  • Last verified: 2026-07-19

  1. SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII — Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (Cornell LII). Primary authority. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩