Wiki documents at least 44 instances in which Sony says you own your games as digital games ownership lawsuit progresses — project is direct assault on Sony's claim in recent ownership lawsuit

extract

Wiki documents at least 44 instances in which Sony says you own your games as digital games ownership lawsuit progresses — project is direct assault on Sony's claim in recent ownership lawsuit The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony's legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store. In a recent lawsuit against Sony, the firm argued that "reasonable consumers would not be misled" into believing they own digital games that they "purchased" on the PlayStation Store. Folks on the Consumer Rights Wiki have now compiled a humongous list of specific instances in which Sony currently states that users do, in fact, own their digital PS4 and/or PS5 games. The list is currently up to 44 specifically documented statements, but actually notes hundreds of examples where Sony explicitly states that users do, in fact, "own" their games across its various services and pages. In this case, Sony says that no "reasonable person" would believe that, when they add a game to their cart and click "Purchase" on the PlayStation Store, they are entering a contract that entitles them to ownership of the digital goods in question. Instead, Sony believes it's obvious that what you're paying for is a limited, revocable license for a service that only remains available as long as Sony offers it, which is quite different from ownership in a legal context. The case isn't exactly about ownership, though; it's really about consumer disclosure and product representation. The plaintiffs aren't arguing that buying a digital game somehow transfers ownership of Sony's underlying intellectual property, but rather that Sony's use of words such as "buy," "purchase," and "own" could reasonably lead consumers to believe that they were acquiring a durable right to use the game, rather than merely obtaining a revocable license. That distinction matters because Sony's defense depends in part on the claim that no reasonable consumer would interpret the transaction that way. At the same time, the plaintiffs have produced a substantial body of evidence showing that Sony itself routinely uses precisely that ownership language when describing the digital games its customers have purchased. This issue is in particularly sharp relief now that Sony's digital store is confirmed to be the only way to purchase new PlayStation games from next year. The publisher's announcement that it would stop producing game discs in January of 2028 caused quite an uproar among gamers who value physical copies of games as a token of ownership. It's worth noting that most players do purchase games digitally (as much as 85% of PlayStation games, by some reporting), and also that disc production and usage become less practical as the manufacturing of both disc drives and discs slowly winds down. The gamer outrage isn't really about the end of discs, though. This fury has been simmering for a good while now, as gamers resent perceived anti-consumer practices. The realization that discs are going away simply forced a lot of gamers outside the enthusiast sphere to confront the reality that they do not own their digital purchases and that they can be taken away at any time, just as Sony has already done in the past. This is especially pointed in light of the price increases asked by game publishers in the last few years, where games have gone from a typical ceiling of $60 USD up to $70 and now, more recently, $80 (with Mario Kart World, Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, and now Grand Theft Auto VI), despite often struggling to provide the same level of satisfaction and enjoyment as older titles. And so we come back around to the Consumer Rights Wiki and its list of times that Sony has explicitly used ownership language on its website and on its digital storefront. The Wiki catalogs these quotes with both links to live pages as well as archived snapshots and screenshots with the relevant text highlighted. The Consumer Rights Wiki was of course founded by consumer rights advocate and YouTuber Louis Rossmann, but much of the work was done by the community that has sprung up around the site as people rebel against the continuous erosion of their consumer rights, particularly by technology companies that argue against their own responsibility. It's unfortunately still not clear if this case is actually going to trial yet. Sony is attempting to have the case moved to private arbitration, citing that all four plaintiffs agreed to such when signing up for the PlayStation Network; in that case, Sony will likely pay a small cash award to each plaintiff and the matter will be settled, legally speaking. If the case goes to trial, there's a possibility for real legal precedent to be set by a public ruling, at least in California. For the sake of consumer transparency on the PlayStation Store, let's hope that the court agrees to hear this one. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Zak is a freelance contributor to Tom's Hardware with decades of PC benchmarking experience who has also written for HotHardware and The Tech Report. A modern-day Renaissance man, he may not be an expert on anything, but he knows just a little about nearly everything. - Gino188 In what world would I as a user buy a game, but not expect to own it? If I boot up my console 10 years later I would still expect to be able to play it.Reply Looks like we are moving towards the corporations owning everything and we pay for the right to temporarily use it. And they can revoke the right whenever. - TerryLaze What does any of that matter?????Reply From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Yes, courts read contracts as a whole and prioritize the overall substance and intent of the agreement over isolated shorthand terms. When the main clauses of an agreement clearly establish a license—such as explicitly retaining ownership and granting only limited usage rights—the incidental use of words like "purchase," "sale," "buy," or "owner" does not automatically transform the contract into a sale of goods or property. Courts generally view these terms as commercial shorthand meant for convenience or simplicity, provided the broader context eliminates ambiguity. Key Legal Principles The "Four Corners" Rule: Courts evaluate the entire document to determine intent, rather than isolating specific words or phrases.Substance Over Form: The legal effect of a contract is governed by its actual operation and rights granted, not by the labels used by the parties.Federal Precedent (Software & IP): In cases involving digital assets or software, federal courts (such as the U.S. Ninth Circuit in Vernor v. Autodesk) have long held that if a user is restricted from transferring the asset and faces notable usage limitations, the transaction is a license, not a sale, regardless of "buy now" button text or shorthand terminology. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. - VizzieTheViz The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable.Reply If they want to sell me a license like that AND use their right to make games unplayable then they’ll have to adjust prices WAY down (and sell me a PlayStation first). - nrdwka Reply Because words are some meaning.TerryLaze said:What does any of that matter????? From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Yes, courts read contracts as a whole and prioritize the overall substance and intent of the agreement over isolated shorthand terms. When the main clauses of an agreement clearly establish a license—such as explicitly retaining ownership and granting only limited usage rights—the incidental use of words like "purchase," "sale," "buy," or "owner" does not automatically transform the contract into a sale of goods or property. Courts generally view these terms as commercial shorthand meant for convenience or simplicity, provided the broader context eliminates ambiguity. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. And small text not always is expected to be read and legal bound. cf. EULA - Concerned Liberty Reply You appear to have missed the part about, "no reasonable consumer" would think they are getting more than a revocable license. The Consumer Rights Wiki is pointing out that Sony is purposely misleading "reasonable consumers" to conclude that they have made a purchase that bestows perpetual access to the content. This is a very specific legal argument that Sony is making and their own words are coming back to bite them.TerryLaze said:What does any of that matter????? From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. - Shugdj I hope the plaintiffs don’t just take the money and run like so many have. This is a landmark case. With all the sites that offer “purchase” yet have clearly manipulated the media/get rid of due to licensing agreements and don’t offer refunds for it; we as consumers need them to step up. Look at Amazon that wants to be a one stop shop, yet doesn’t even offer the full seasons of Dr. Who and many shows are the tv version and not the dvd version, then once they don’t want to pay up to retain rights, we are out of our monies. Literally just got an alert from them that they are offering podcasts, nty, tracking our mentions of them across the board. They track the data, use it against us to manipulate into purchase/rental, but don’t live up to true ownership rights. Guess we gave them way too much power. How many people missing those malls they let fall to pieces now? Not me, lol but might be if Sony overlords manage to pay off these involved in the suit and keep being giant butts.Reply - ezst036 Reply Correct.VizzieTheViz said:The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable. Sony needs to man up and start using the phrase permanent license or perpetual license and be explicit about it that the license is non-revocable. Both in and out of the small print. They want to be digital then this is the price they should have to pay to get digital. - Shugdj Reply Truth, and A PlayStation that they made very ugly and used the demand against the consumers. Upped the prices and allowed unlimited purchases so crims could buy 200 and then resell for astronomical prices. People fighting, literally, for them. Then say, well you can buy the box but nothing digital purchased and retained in the memory isn’t yours. Can’t burn it either. Omg the good ol days. Download and burn the copies as needed…never again.VizzieTheViz said:The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable. If they want to sell me a license like that AND use their right to make games unplayable then they’ll have to adjust prices WAY down (and sell me a PlayStation first). - ejolson The way I see it, young people listen to popular music and play video games. Many years later that same music and those same games bring back amazing memories and feelings from the past.Reply When some company decides it's more profitable to cancel the license, the result cuts off an important connection people have with their personal histories. I'd say it's diabolical, except this doesn't quite live up to the standards of the Sony rootkit scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal