Sony is trying to get a class action lawsuit dismissed by compelling individual arbitration and a stay, or dismissing the case with prejudice.
The case was brought in June by four plaintiffs in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and it concerns what the plaintiffs say is Sony’s deceptive practice of selling digital games with language that suggests ownership – while in fact, the giant’s terms of service say that buyers only get a limited license.
The plaintiffs, four California gamers, filed the lawsuit in June, alleging that Sony is violating California’s Business and Professions Code section 17500.6, which states that digital goods cannot be advertised with “buy,” “purchase,” or similar language, unless the seller either obtains the customer’s “affirmative acknowledgement” that they are not buying the product but a license, or provides a “clear and conspicuous” statement before the transaction that the product is licensed and not sold.
Sony’s motion, filed on August 21, asks the court to grant it the above requests, and cites the terms of service that it says the plaintiffs agreed to, which include a binding individual arbitration and class-action waiver clause.
According to Sony, the plaintiffs, Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza and John Salinas, have admitted that a licensing notice appeared above the “Confirm Purchase” button on the PlayStation Store. This notice read that the “purchase of this digital product amounts to a license subject to the Software Product License Agreement.”
Sony also underlined that the PlayStation Terms and license agreement were available as blue hyperlinks against black text.
The giant’s terms say that when a product is ordered or purchased from the store, the buyer acquires “a personal license to use that product for private, non-commercial use.” This license is non-transferable, unless local law requires otherwise, and “this means you can use a product in the ways described in the license, but do not own the product,” Sony’s filing reads.
Another section of the terms states that words like “own,” “ownership,” “purchase,” “sale,” and “buy” do not imply any transfer of ownership. The software agreement says that the software is “licensed, not sold.”
Sony also argues that in the “digital age” it is “not plausible” to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were buying ownership of a digital game, rather than a license. The company illustrates this by saying that two plaintiffs who bought Resident Evil Requiem could not have done so if the first buyer had become the game’s exclusive owner. And, Sony continues, reasonable consumers know that many people play the same game at the same time, and therefore could not all be its exclusive owners.
The company also argues that all four plaintiffs accepted the latest version of the terms in April 2024, which contains the arbitration and class-action waiver provision, and that they did not opt out in the 30 days they had to do so in writing.
Sony’s request will be heard on October 1.
The argument arrived after PlayStation had already removed access to paid movies and television shows in 2022 and announced another removal involving Discovery content in 2023. In 2026, Sony was set to remove 551 StudioCanal films from customer libraries.
Sony also introduced a license check for newly purchased digital PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5 games in April. “A one-time online check is required after purchase to confirm the game’s license, after which no further check-ins are needed,” a PlayStation representative told Game File.
A separate Sony decision is set to affect PlayStation disc authentication in January 2028. In the August court filing, meanwhile, the storefront invites the customer to “Confirm Purchase,” while the terms Sony wants enforced say the customer does not own the product.
