The latest documents submitted by Sony to a U.S. federal court show that the company opposes a class-action lawsuit targeting the PlayStation store. The core argument is that when users purchase digital games, they do not acquire “ownership,” but rather a revocable license to use those games. The focus of the case is whether the platform’s checkout page clearly explains this point enough.
The lawsuit revolves around the phrase "purchase".
This lawsuit was filed in June of this year at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, with four PlayStation users from California as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that PlayStation stores use buttons such as "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase" during checkout, which can easily lead consumers to believe that they have acquired ownership of the digital games.
The complaint cites a disclosure requirement that came into effect in California in January 2025. This requirement states that if digital goods sold by merchants are essentially merely licensed for use, then merchants cannot use terms such as "purchase" to lead consumers to believe that they have unlimited ownership, unless it is clearly and prominently indicated on the checkout page that this is a license.
Sony states that the terms are already explained.
In a document submitted on August 21, Sony stated that the checkout process for PlayStation already provides relevant instructions. The company mentioned that a link to the detailed rules on the shopping cart page will guide users to view the service terms for PlayStation as well as the software product license agreement, which clearly states that users "do not own the product," and that the software is "licensed for your use, not sold to you."
However, what the plaintiff side questions is whether these explanations are direct enough and prominent enough, rather than whether there is relevant text in the platform's terms and conditions. The court will subsequently need to determine whether the current display method meets the new California regulations' requirements for clarity of disclosure.
Sony first seeks to proceed to arbitration.
Sony's primary request in this document is not to directly ask the court to make a substantive ruling on the issue of "ownership," but rather to have the judge refer the dispute to private arbitration proceedings first. The company's rationale is that PlayStation users have agreed in the service terms to resolve related disputes through arbitration, and the terms also include an exemption from class action, requiring users to file claims individually in their own names.
If the court accepts this request, the case will not proceed to jury trial, and the plaintiff's chances of advancing a class action will also be significantly reduced. Sony's argument that "reasonable consumers would not consider themselves to own digital games" mainly applies in cases where the judge rejects the arbitration request.
Re-selling the same game as evidence
In the document, Sony also presents a more direct argument. The company cites the time difference between two plaintiffs purchasing the same game, “Resident Evil Requiem”, stating that after one user purchased it on February 14th, another user was still able to buy the same product again on February 25th for $69.99. This implies that the transaction model itself does not conform to the traditional concept of “exclusive ownership”, and therefore consumers should not reasonably assume that they have acquired full ownership.
Whether this claim will be accepted by the court remains to be seen. The focus of the dispute in this case is not necessarily whether digital goods possess the traditional concept of exclusive ownership, but rather whether the platform fully informed users at the time of sale that what they were actually purchasing was merely a license.
