Sony filed arguments in federal court on August 21 contending that reasonable consumers would not believe they own the digital games they purchase on PlayStation Store, according to filings reviewed in the case.
The filing responds to a proposed class action brought in June by four California PlayStation customers in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that the store's "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase" buttons mislead buyers into thinking they are obtaining ownership when transactions actually convey only a revocable license.
The lawsuit's primary claim is brought under Section 17500.6, a California false advertising law provision added by AB 2426 that took effect in January 2025. The law prohibits sellers from using terms like "buy" or "purchase" that a reasonable person would interpret as conferring ownership unless the checkout includes a clear, conspicuous statement in plain language disclosing that the digital purchase is a license.
Sony argues its checkout already satisfies this requirement. The company points to fine print in the cart that links to PlayStation's Terms of Service and Software Product License Agreement. The terms of service state customers "do not own the product" in the eighth of 18 sections, while the license agreement specifies the software is "licensed to you, not sold," according to the filing.
Sony further contends that ownership is implausible as a consumer expectation. The filing cites the example of two customers purchasing the same game—Resident Evil Requiem—11 days apart for $69.99. Sony's legal argument states that had the first purchaser actually owned the game, the second customer could not have bought it, making it implausible for reasonable consumers to believe they were obtaining ownership of a digital game.
Sony's primary request is that the judge send the dispute to private arbitration under terms PlayStation users agree to when creating accounts. PlayStation's terms of service include an express class action waiver requiring individual claims. Arbitration would eliminate the risk of a jury verdict.
The judge has not yet ruled on the arbitration request.
