This is the second article in our series analysing the potential impact of the new Employment Rights Act (ERA) 2025 on games businesses operating within the UK.
In the first article, we explored how ERA 2025 bolsters trade union powers and what that could mean for the industry, particularly given recent pushes for unionisation. This time, we turn to another area where employers are facing a significant increase in their legal obligations: harassment.
The games industry (like many industries) has spent much of the past decade confronting difficult conversations around workplace culture, bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment. Many studios have worked hard to improve their cultures and create safer, more inclusive workplaces. With the incoming ERA 2025 changes, legislators have clearly concluded that employers need to do even more.
On the face of it, the changes we discuss in this article might not seem that significant. However, in practice, they could result in the most substantial overhaul of anti-harassment best practice considerations since the Equality Act 2010.
For an industry built on collaboration – between developers, publishers, platform holders, partners and, ultimately, millions of players around the world – these changes present some unique challenges. How do you protect employees from harassment by someone who doesn’t even work for your studio? And how far does an employer’s responsibility extend when so much of modern game development happens across numerous organisations, jurisdictions, and online communities?
Those are exactly the questions many games businesses will soon need to answer.
Third-party harassment is back
Perhaps the most eye-catching reform is the return of employer liability for harassment committed by third parties.
Many readers might not realise that this is not actually a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 originally contained provisions making employers liable where employees were harassed by third parties, but these were repealed by the Coalition Government in 2013. ERA 2025 reverses that position.
“Employers will once again be responsible for protecting workers from harassment carried out by people who are not employees”
From October 2026, employers will once again be responsible for protecting workers from harassment carried out by people who are not employees. For many sectors, this will be significant. For games companies, it could be particularly challenging.
Few industries involve as many interactions with external organisations and individuals as games do. A single title might involve developers, publishers, platform holders, co-development studios, localisation providers, QA partners, voice actors, motion capture specialists, freelancers, agencies, and investors, often spread across multiple countries and businesses.
Then there are the players themselves. Community managers, customer support teams, developers attending conventions, livestreams or Discord sessions, and employees engaging on social media can all find themselves on the receiving end of abusive or discriminatory behaviour. Sadly, that is a reality many studios have experienced first-hand.
“Employers will increasingly be expected to think proactively about the risks their employees face”
The obvious question is: where does an employer’s responsibility end?
If an employee is harassed by someone from a publishing partner during a milestone meeting, or receives sustained abuse from players while carrying out their role, what practical steps are expected of the employer?
The answer will inevitably depend on the circumstances. Employers cannot control every interaction that takes place online or in the wider gaming community. But they will increasingly be expected to think proactively about the risks their employees face and put sensible measures in place to minimise them.
That might include setting behavioural expectations with external partners, ensuring staff know how to report incidents, providing additional support for employees in public-facing roles, and considering whether individuals who experience repeated abuse need further protection.
The emphasis, as with many aspects of the ERA, is shifting away from reacting to problems after they occur and towards preventing them wherever reasonably possible.
“Reasonable steps” becomes “all reasonable steps”
The second major development builds on the new duty introduced in October 2024, which required employers to proactively take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment occurring within the workplace. This was a step up from the previous Equality Act 2010 protections, which generally did not prescribe the introduction of preventative measures, but instead provided an avenue for employees to sue when they were subjected to discriminatory conduct or harassment.
“The new wording raises the bar considerably”
From October 2026, one word is being inserted. But in this context, it is a very important one.
Employers will be expected to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment occurring in the workplace. That seemingly modest amendment could have a significant practical impact.
To comply with the 2024 preventative requirements, employers were already being mandated to take steps to tackle potential sexual harassment which they hadn’t previously considered. This included the introduction of effective anti-harassment policies and training, carrying out risk assessments of their workplace, and operating effecting reporting mechanisms. The new wording raises the bar considerably. Employment tribunals are likely to ask a much tougher question: has this employer done everything they could reasonably have done to prevent sexual harassment from occurring?
Imagine, for example, that a studio provides annual online harassment training, but has never assessed whether particular teams face heightened risks. A community management team regularly dealing with abusive players might require very different support from a finance department that rarely interacts with the public.
For an industry that has experienced well-publicised concerns around workplace culture, this is unlikely to be an academic exercise. Games businesses should expect much greater scrutiny of the effectiveness of their anti-harassment measures, rather than just their existence.
Risk assessments are likely to become increasingly important, with businesses whose workforce and leadership are male dominated needing to be even more alert to risk. Employers should identify where harassment risks arise, which groups of employees are particularly exposed, and what additional safeguards are appropriate.
“Games businesses should expect much greater scrutiny of the effectiveness of their anti-harassment measures”
Policies should be reviewed regularly, rather than gathering dust on an intranet. Training should be meaningful, up to date, and tailored to different roles. Managers should be equipped to identify concerns early and respond appropriately. Businesses should also consider whether employees genuinely feel able to report concerns, and whether those reports are acted upon consistently.
For an industry that continues to face economic pressures, these enhanced obligations inevitably create additional compliance costs and management time. Nevertheless, given the industry’s history, many would argue that these reforms represent an important step towards creating safer and more inclusive workplaces.
Sexual harassment becomes a whistleblowing issue
One important change is already in force. Since April 6, 2026, disclosures relating to sexual harassment can qualify as protected disclosures under the UK’s whistleblowing legislation.
In practical terms, this means that workers who raise concerns about sexual harassment can now benefit from whistleblowing protection if the legal requirements are satisfied. Previously, this was unlikely to be the case.
The purpose is clear – to encourage more individuals to report inappropriate behaviour through formal channels. But the net result is likely to be that potential sexual harassment claims will become more complex and expensive to defend, with multiple litigation avenues being available for claimants.
Given the increased focus on workplace culture across the games industry in recent years, employers should probably expect greater confidence from employees in raising concerns internally. Where employees believe those concerns are not being taken seriously, we could also see a potential increase in disclosures to external bodies, too, such as unions, industry associations, or organisations such CIISA (the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority).
All of this means that effective whistleblowing procedures, clear reporting channels, and well-trained managers will be even more important.
Are workplace gagging clauses on the way out?
The final change is potentially the most important.
The government intends to prohibit confidentiality clauses that prevent workers from speaking about allegations of discrimination or harassment, with this change expected to be introduced at some point during 2027.
The proposals have attracted considerable support following years of campaigning around the misuse of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims of workplace harassment.
From a cultural perspective, the objective is difficult to argue with. If employers cannot rely on confidentiality clauses to keep allegations out of the public domain, there is an even greater incentive to deal with inappropriate behaviour properly and create workplace cultures where harassment is less likely to occur in the first place.
“Employers might become less willing to settle harassment and discrimination claims if they cannot secure confidentiality”
However, in my experience, most employers are not using settlement agreements to conceal wrongdoing. More often, they are using them to resolve disputes quickly, privately, and by agreement, allowing everyone involved to move forward. Confidentiality has frequently formed an important part of that bargain for both sides.
A real concern is that employers might become less willing to settle harassment and discrimination claims if they cannot secure confidentiality as part of the agreement. Against the backdrop of an already overstretched employment tribunal system (and with tribunal limitation periods also being doubled from three months to six months from October 2026), we could realistically be facing far more cases progressing to full hearings. This will simply be unsustainable unless the government makes material investment within the tribunal system.
Whether this change ultimately leads to greater transparency, more employment litigation, or both remains to be seen.
Looking ahead
Taken individually, each of these reforms is significant. Collectively, they represent a clear shift in expectations.
Employers are increasingly being judged not simply on how they respond when harassment occurs, but on everything they did beforehand to try to prevent it.
For games companies, where collaboration, outsourcing, and online communities are fundamental to how the industry operates, meeting that standard will require careful planning rather than last-minute compliance exercises. The businesses that begin reviewing their risk assessments, policies, training, reporting mechanisms and relationships with third parties now are likely to be in a much stronger position when these reforms take effect.
But perhaps the biggest challenge for employers is still to come.
In the final article in this series, we will examine what might prove to be the most commercially significant reform of all: the reduction in the qualification period for unfair dismissal claims from two years to six months, together with the removal of the statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation. Those changes have the potential to fundamentally alter how games companies recruit, manage performance and make dismissal decisions, and will be in force from January 1, 2027.
