Sony told a federal court on August 21 that reasonable consumers would not be misled into thinking they own the digital games they pay for.
Its filing argues that ownership is implausible because two plaintiffs bought the same game 11 days apart—had the first owned it, the second could not have bought it.
The proposed class action, filed in June by four California PlayStation customers, alleges the store’s checkout fails a disclosure law in force since January 2025.
Sony has told a federal judge that no reasonable consumer believes they own the digital games they pay for on the PlayStation Store, according to an August 21 filing reviewed by Game File.
The filing is the company’s first substantive answer to a proposed class action brought in June in the Northern District of California by four California PlayStation customers. They allege the store’s “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons imply ownership when the transaction hands over only a revocable license.
Myriad: Bitcoin’s next price move? Click to make your prediction
The suit’s first count is brought under Section 17500.6, added to California’s false advertising law by AB 2426, which took effect in January 2025. It bars sellers from using “buy,” “purchase,” or any term a reasonable person would read as conferring unrestricted ownership, unless the checkout carries a clear and conspicuous statement, in plain language, that buying the digital good is a license.
Sony says its checkout already does that. Fine print in the cart links to the PlayStation Terms of Service and the Software Product License Agreement. The terms of service tell customers they “do not own the product,” in the eighth of 18 sections; the license agreement says the software is “licensed to you, not sold,” several hundred words in.
A Sony PlayStation purchase. Image: Game File
The filing goes further, arguing that ownership is not something a buyer could plausibly expect. Jason Mendoza bought Resident Evil Requiem on February 14; Edward Heycock bought the same game for $69.99 on February 25. Had Mendoza owned it, Sony’s lawyers wrote in a passage quoted by the outlet, Heycock could not have bought it—which makes it “not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership'” of a digital game.
What the filing seeks
Sony’s primary request, per Game File, is that the judge send the dispute into private arbitration, on the grounds that PlayStation’s terms commit users to settle claims that way. The ownership arguments apply only if the judge refuses.
Arbitration removes the risk of a jury verdict, and PlayStation’s terms of service carry an express class action waiver requiring claims to be brought individually.
Sony said on July 1 that it will stop producing physical discs for new PlayStation games from January 2028, leaving the PlayStation Store and digital retailers the only route to new releases. Sony Group is reportedly planning a dollar-denominated stablecoin for purchases across its digital ecosystem.
The judge has not yet ruled on the arbitration request.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.
We and our selected partners wish to use cookies to collect information about you for functional purposes and statistical marketing. You may not give us your consent for certain purposes by selecting an option and you can withdraw your consent at any time via the cookie icon.
Cookies are small text that can be used by websites to make the user experience more efficient. The law states that we may store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies, we need your permission. This site uses various types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.
Your permission applies to the following domains:
https://fsnn.net
Necessary
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Statistic
Statistic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Preferences
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
Marketing
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.