Sony argues ‘reasonable consumers would not be misled’ into believing they own digital games in class action motion — PlayStation Store ‘buy’ button lawsuit may never reach a courtroom

extract

Sony argues ‘reasonable consumers would not be misled’ into believing they own digital games in class action motion — PlayStation Store ‘buy’ button lawsuit may never reach a courtroom Sony has filed a motion to compel arbitration outside of court. Sony Interactive Entertainment asked a federal judge on August 21 to push a proposed class action lawsuit over the PlayStation Store’s “buy” and “purchase” labels out of court and into individual arbitration. In doing so, Sony is invoking a clause in the same terms of service that the four litigants suing it in Heycock v. Sony Corporation of America argue aren’t presented clearly enough at checkout to satisfy California law. The June lawsuit alleges that Sony sells revocable game licenses behind “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons without the disclosures required by AB 2426, California’s digital goods law. That law, which came into effect on January 1, 2025, requires that companies clearly disclose when consumers are obtaining a revocable license to access “digital goods,” the definition of which includes games, and prohibits storefronts from using words like “buy” or “purchase” when a license is being granted. Four PlayStation owners, Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas, filed the complaint on June 18 in the Northern District of California, pleading violations of Business and Professions Code § 17500.6, the state’s False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed class of California purchasers. The purchases the plaintiffs are pleading all post-date the statute’s January 1, 2025 effective date: Garcia bought NBA 2K25 for $20.99 on March 27, 2025, then NBA 2K26 and Madden NFL 26 for $65.99 and $69.99, respectively, on August 11, 2025. The complaint alleges that these transactions convey “only a limited, revocable license,” while the language used on the PlayStation Store communicates ownership. The four plaintiffs claim they sent two CLRA demand letters on April 21, 2026, and May 11, 2026, respectively, which Sony didn’t answer. See you in court Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service requires U.S. users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions, unless the user mails a written opt-out to Sony’s legal department in San Mateo within 30 days of accepting the terms. Sony’s motion attached three versions of those terms as exhibits dated August 2023, March 2025, and April 2026, along with the Software Product License Agreement, covering the window in which the proposed class members accepted them. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed co-defendant Sony Corporation of America on August 20, one day before Sony’s motion, leaving Sony Interactive Entertainment as the sole defendant. Some readers — especially those outside the U.S. — may be surprised to learn that corporations can contractually block their customers from suing them in court. The foundation for this is the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” and the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that the Act overrides state rules treating class action waivers in consumer contracts as unenforceable. Sony added the arbitration clause to the PlayStation Network terms in September 2011, months after that ruling. The clause isn’t bulletproof: California’s McGill v. Citibank ruling bars contracts from waiving a consumer’s right to seek a public injunction, and the present Heycock complaint is asking for an injunction against Sony’s checkout practices. The plaintiffs’ response to Sony’s motion is due by September 4, and we can expect the plaintiffs to argue that at least the injunctive claims belong in court. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Both Sony’s motion and the plaintiffs’ response will then be heard by Judge Vince Chhabria on October 1st in San Francisco. Its fallback asks Judge Chhabria to dismiss the case outright on the grounds that the checkout flow already complies with California law, with Sony’s filing arguing that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they own digital games because buyers agree to the license terms via the Software Product License Agreement before the purchase is finalized. Quoting Section 8.4 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, the motion states that a purchase buys “a personal license” and that users “do not own the product,” and Section 1 of the SPLA, which reads: “The software is licensed to you, not sold.” Sony’s lawyers, then, appear to contend that digital purchasers inherently understand that they can’t own a game the way they’d own a physical object, since a digital copy isn’t exclusive to any one buyer. The filing also argues that claims over digital game ownership are highly unlikely (prima facie implausible), pointing to the plaintiffs’ own purchase histories in what is either a wild display of mental gymnastics or a bad-faith attempt to argue that, in saying they own the games they’ve purchased, the plaintiffs are trying to stake a claim to owning the game IP outright, which they obviously don’t. Sony highlights that Heycock bought Resident Evil Requiem for $69.99 on February 25, 2026, 11 days after co-plaintiff Jason Mendoza bought the same game, and argues that if a purchase conveyed ownership, Mendoza would have owned the title and Heycock’s transaction couldn’t have happened. California's AB 2426 California Assembly Bill 2426 took effect on January 1, 2025, and bars sellers of revocable digital goods from using language like “buy” and “purchase,” or any term that a reasonable person would read as conferring ownership, unless the seller collects an affirmative acknowledgment that the transaction is a license or displays a clear and conspicuous statement, distinct from other T&Cs, before checkout. Subscriptions, free content, and games offered for permanent offline download are exempt, and violations carry potential misdemeanor liability and civil penalties. Valve added a license disclaimer banner to Steam’s shopping cart within weeks of the bill’s signing in 2024. Sony’s checkout, meanwhile, links to the Terms of Service and license agreement in fine print but requires no acknowledgment and shows no separate statement. The only real precedent on AB 2426 is Casell v. Ubisoft, which reached no ruling on digital ownership. Players sued in November 2024 over the server shutdown that rendered The Crew unplayable, but their purchases and the filing itself predated § 17500.6, so the statute was never applied to the case. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the federal action in June 2025, refiled in Sacramento County Superior Court, and reached a class settlement with Ubisoft that’s now in the approval process. The plaintiffs’ opposition to Sony’s motion is due September 4, and Sony’s reply is due September 11, ahead of the October 1 hearing. The dispute runs alongside Sony’s controversial intent to wind down physical media production for new PlayStation releases and comes months after a firmware change briefly convinced players that digital games required an online check-in every 30 days. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Luke James is a freelance writer and journalist. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory. - russell_john Steam's Subscriber Agreement says the same thingReply GOG's User Agreement says the same thing Every game studio's user agreement says the same thing You only own a license and it is non-transferable in most cases. For instance neither Steam nor GOG will let you sell or even give away a license to a friend or relative This is based on a pair of 1996 international treaties with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty In the US this was codified into law in the 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Ignorance of law is no excuse and pleading ignorance is not allowed in any court in the world. - ThisIsMe Replyrussell_john said:Ignorance of law is no excuse and pleading ignorance is not allowed in any court in the world. That is 100% correct, and is also likely how the defense would like to redirect a case like this. Basically redirecting the case into you attacking/defending the wrong approach. The correct approach is to prove ignorance of facts surrounding the case. This would be based on intentionally misleading and intentionally encouraging wording on brief explanations and buttons that encourage hasty action by invoking trust based on an experience designed to mimic a typical “buy” action and not a “lease” or “rent” or otherwise “time limited” transaction agreement. - Arkitekt78 Of course they want arbitration - they are getting demolished on the internet and their stubbornness and greed are sending their fanbase away in droves. A public hearing would be disastrous. And hilarious.Reply - Kindaian Yes, it's a license, but a normal user, when they see a "Buy" button, will assume that the license is permanent and without end, specially as those terms have not be defined at the time of buying by the seller.Reply So now changing the terms and/or removing access to said content can be construed as a false advertisement at best, and tort at worse. - gardien Reply Hi Sony!russell_john said:Steam's Subscriber Agreement says the same thing GOG's User Agreement says the same thing Every game studio's user agreement says the same thing You only own a license and it is non-transferable in most cases. For instance neither Steam nor GOG will let you sell or even give away a license to a friend or relative This is based on a pair of 1996 international treaties with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty In the US this was codified into law in the 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Ignorance of law is no excuse and pleading ignorance is not allowed in any court in the world. - Taskun If Heycock and company want to reach out I'd be glad to offer what knowledge and experience I have as a pro se litigant.Reply Their defense premise is false. They're attempting to reclassify and redefine things in their favor, not unlike Meta with the social media vs entertainment argument. Ultimately, they have to prove that their claim is hope MOST consumers think. And it isn't. We all agree when I press buy I expect to own it, digital or not. Otherwise, you say "rent". Movies on platforms like Google say Rent vs Buy. So it seems as if Sony wants to rules inequitably in their favor. They don't want fairness in the law; they want control over it. - Mikitsi Reply But Sony is intentionally misleading buyers into believing that they permanently own games when they don't. And seeing as how any physical game that requires a day one download or requires you to be always online can become useless if the publishing company kills it on the servers (see Stop Killing Games), people who own hard copies can end up owning useless waste. So I can understand the frustration.russell_john said:Steam's Subscriber Agreement says the same thing GOG's User Agreement says the same thing Every game studio's user agreement says the same thing You only own a license and it is non-transferable in most cases. For instance neither Steam nor GOG will let you sell or even give away a license to a friend or relative This is based on a pair of 1996 international treaties with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty In the US this was codified into law in the 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Ignorance of law is no excuse and pleading ignorance is not allowed in any court in the world. - ezst036 Reply It is a very peculiar logical fallacy that a lot of people labor under that because you own an install disk of the original Command and Conquer from 30 years ago that you "own the game"russell_john said:Steam's Subscriber Agreement says the same thing GOG's User Agreement says the same thing Every game studio's user agreement says the same thing You only own a license and it is non-transferable in most cases. For instance neither Steam nor GOG will let you sell or even give away a license to a friend or relative This is based on a pair of 1996 international treaties with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty In the US this was codified into law in the 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Ignorance of law is no excuse and pleading ignorance is not allowed in any court in the world. Only one person(really, company) owns the game. "They" own the game. Not you. Its not your game. You DO NOT "own it". But I understand the word play people are using. I own the game because I own the disk and I can give the disk to anybody I want. No that's not what that means. You just own a copy, a licensed copy. You are only allowed to do what the license dictates. But people with disks in their hand get offended when you tell them they only own a licensed copy. I don't know why they get offended at that truth but they do. - ezst036 Reply Sony is treating its licensing and terms like a living and breathing document.Kindaian said:Yes, it's a license, but a normal user, when they see a "Buy" button, will assume that the license is permanent and without end, specially as those terms have not be defined at the time of buying by the seller. So now changing the terms and/or removing access to said content can be construed as a false advertisement at best, and tort at worse. Nobody would ever want their contracts handled that way be it healthcare agreements, constitutions, nor video games. With this, the outrage against the living and breathing treatment makes total sense. But the fact remains: Buying is not "owning". Buying is only licensing and nothing more. Licensing. - bigdragon What Sony is doing, from my point of view, is selling a license to a license and obfuscating the whole arrangement by calling it a purchase! It reads like some sort of digital subletting. There's a difference between digital media that you spend money on and get perpetual access to -- either via some sort of streaming arrangement or local download -- and digital media your access to is conditional on the seller maintaining a business relationship with the owner of the digital media.Reply I have several purchased games on Steam that are no longer for sale. They're not even listed in the Steam store. You can't buy them or download them, but I can because I bought them. Contrast this to what Sony is doing where people bought digital copies of movies and then lost access to them when some sort of backroom license deal between Sony and the property owner collapsed. I still have my Steam games, but those people are out of their Sony movies -- that's wrong. The courts need to slap Sony down for this. Sony is engaging in the exact same shenanigans Comcast and Verizon have with their claims of selling unlimited internet -- it's not unlimited when there's a limit! Likewise, buying a digital media through Sony that's marked as a purchase should be in perpetuity since no time limit, view limit, or B2B contract limitation is clearly indicated that would tell the consumer they're renting that digital media. EDIT: To further drive this point home, I own many disc-based games too. No vendor sells these games new anymore. I still have access to them. While I don't own the IP on the discs, I do own access to the contents in perpetuity. What Sony is doing is akin to Best Buy, Amazon, Gamestop, Toys-R-Us, and others showing up at my door and demanding those discs back because they lost the ability to sell them to new clients or store copies of the disc contents on their servers through some B2B license arrangement I had zero awareness of or input into. Exactly. I'm a reasonable, average consumer. When I see the "Buy" button -- specifically "Buy" and not "Rent" -- I expect to receive a permanent, irrevocable license to enjoy the associated content. There is no indication at the buy screen that a purchase is time-limited or conditional on the seller maintaining their own license to access the content I purchased. I do not expect the seller to make the purchased content inaccessible to me at their convenience, unilaterally as that would breach the purchase contract from my point of view.Kindaian said:Yes, it's a license, but a normal user, when they see a "Buy" button, will assume that the license is permanent and without end, specially as those terms have not be defined at the time of buying by the seller. So now changing the terms and/or removing access to said content can be construed as a false advertisement at best, and tort at worse. I think the courts need to make a clear distinction between digital purchases like you get through Steam or GOG and digital subletting like you get through Sony.