Summary

  • On August 21, Sony asserted in federal court that consumers are not misled into believing they own the digital games they purchase.
  • The company argues that ownership claims are unfounded, citing a case where two plaintiffs acquired the same game on different dates, suggesting that if one owned it, the other could not have purchased it.
  • The class action lawsuit, initiated in June by four PlayStation users from California, claims the store's checkout process violates a disclosure law effective from January 2025.

Sony presented its case to a federal judge, claiming no reasonable consumer thinks they own the digital games purchased from the PlayStation Store, as detailed in an August 21 filing reviewed by Game File.

This marks Sony's first detailed response to a class action lawsuit filed in June in Northern California by four customers. They argue that the "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase" buttons imply ownership, whereas the transaction only grants a revocable license.

Myriad: Predict Bitcoin's next price move

The initial claim of the lawsuit is based on Section 17500.6, part of California's false advertising regulations introduced by AB 2426, which took effect in January 2025. This section prohibits sellers from using terms like "buy" or "purchase" that a reasonable consumer would interpret as granting full ownership, unless the transaction includes a clear statement indicating that the purchase is merely a license.

Sony contends that its checkout process already adheres to this requirement. The fine print in the shopping cart directs users to the PlayStation Terms of Service and the Software Product License Agreement. These documents clarify that customers "do not own the product" in one of the sections, while the license agreement specifies that the software is "licensed to you, not sold."

A purchase made on a Sony PlayStation platform. Image: Game File

The filing further emphasizes that it is unreasonable to expect ownership of digital games. For instance, Jason Mendoza purchased Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, while Edward Heycock bought the same title for $69.99 on February 25. Sony's legal team argues that if Mendoza had owned the game, Heycock would not have been able to purchase it, making it implausible to claim that consumers believed they were gaining "ownership" of a digital game.

Objectives of the Filing

According to Game File, Sony's main request is for the judge to refer the matter to private arbitration, based on the assertion that PlayStation's terms require users to resolve disputes this way. The arguments regarding ownership would only apply if the judge dismisses this request.

Arbitration mitigates the possibility of a jury trial, and the terms of service explicitly include a class action waiver, mandating that claims be filed individually.

On July 1, Sony announced plans to cease the production of physical discs for new PlayStation games starting January 2028, leaving digital avenues as the sole means for accessing new releases. Additionally, Sony Group is reportedly developing a dollar-backed stablecoin for transactions within its digital ecosystem.

The judge has yet to make a decision regarding the arbitration request.

Daily Debrief Newsletter

Stay updated with the latest news stories, along with original features, podcasts, videos, and more.