Does clicking the “Buy” button on the PlayStation Store mean you actually own the game? Sony Interactive <a href="https://comicvibe.com/zee-entertainment-shares-decline-for-fourth-straight-day-fall-10/” title=”Zee Entertainment shares decline for fourth straight day, fall 10%”>Entertainment (SIE) argues it does not. In an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the United States, SIE countered that digital game transactions grant a usage license rather than transfer ownership, and that consumers are sufficiently informed of this during the checkout process.
On August 21, SIE filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The filing also included a request to dismiss the complaint if the court denies the motion to compel arbitration. This marks Sony’s first substantive legal response to the lawsuit filed last June.
The four California residents who filed the lawsuit claimed that the PlayStation Store misled consumers into believing they would own the games by using phrasing such as “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase”. They argue that while the actual terms grant users nothing more than a limited, non-exclusive, and revocable license, this distinction was not clearly communicated on the checkout screen.
The plaintiffs pointed out that the licensing disclosure on the checkout screen is displayed in smaller text than other elements and lacks visual emphasis. They also noted there was no procedure for users to acknowledge the license status, such as a separate checkbox, demanding damages, changes to display practices, and class-action certification.
At issue is California’s Business and Professions Code (AB 2426), which took effect in 2025. The law does not outright ban the use of terms like “buy” or similar phrasing for digital goods. However, sellers must either have buyers separately acknowledge that the transaction is a license along with its applicable terms, or clearly and conspicuously inform buyers before completing the transaction while providing a link to the detailed conditions.
Sony countered that the PlayStation Store checkout screen provides links to the PlayStation Terms of Service and the Software Product License Agreement. It explained that the Terms of Service state users acquire a personal license upon ordering or purchasing products rather than owning the product itself, and that the software agreement explicitly specifies that games are licensed, not sold. Sony argued that taken together, these statements leave no possibility for a reasonable consumer to mistakenly believe they are acquiring ownership of a digital game.
Sony’s counsel also presented logic arguing that the plaintiffs’ position, which assumes ownership of digital games, is practically untenable. As an example, Sony argued that if one plaintiff had purchased and thereby “owned” Resident Evil Requiem first, another plaintiff should not have been able to purchase the same game afterward.
As of August 31, the court has not ruled on Sony’s motions or either side’s claims. The plaintiffs’ deadline to respond is September 4, Sony’s deadline for a reply is September 11, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for October 1.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated with the help of AI. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
[Read Original]
