Sony has told a federal judge that no reasonable consumer believes they own the digital games they pay for on the PlayStation Store — an argument that cuts to the heart of one of the digital economy’s oldest unresolved questions: what does “buy” actually mean?
The August 21 filing, reviewed by Game File, 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. The plaintiffs allege that the store’s “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons imply ownership, when the transaction actually hands over only a revocable license to access the content.
The law at stake
The suit’s first count rests on Section 17500.6 of California’s false advertising law, added by Assembly Bill 2426, which took effect in January 2025. The statute 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 acquiring the digital good is a license.
California, in other words, has already legislated the answer to the ownership question for storefronts serving its residents. The fight now is over whether Sony’s implementation satisfies the disclosure standard or buries the truth where no ordinary shopper will find it.
Sony’s defense: read the fine print
Sony says its checkout already does what the law requires. Fine print in the shopping 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 eighteen sections. The license agreement says the software is “licensed to you, not sold,” several hundred words into the document.
Whether buried disclosures satisfy a statute demanding plain language and conspicuous placement is precisely what the court will decide.
The filing goes further, arguing that ownership is not something a buyer could plausibly expect in the first place. In one striking passage, Sony notes that two named plaintiffs bought the same game eleven days apart. Had the first purchaser actually owned the title as property, the argument runs, the second could not have bought it at all — the same copy cannot be sold twice. The fact that both transactions completed, Sony contends, shows that everyone involved understood the deal was a license, not a transfer of ownership.
Why this matters beyond gaming
The case resonates far beyond PlayStation. Digital marketplaces of every kind — games, movies, music, e-books, software — use the language of ownership while operating on the legal architecture of licensing. Consumers are told they are buying, while contracts ensure they are only borrowing on terms that can be revised or revoked.
That gap is exactly what blockchain-based ownership models claim to close. Non-fungible tokens and on-chain digital property were conceived as a technical answer to this precise problem: cryptographically verifiable ownership that no platform can unilaterally revoke, transferable by the holder without an intermediary’s permission. However the NFT market’s fortunes have fluctuated, the underlying critique it surfaced — that “buying” digital goods from a walled garden grants no durable rights — is now being litigated in a federal courtroom by a company that operates one of the largest such gardens in existence.
The irony is hard to miss. Sony is spending legal resources to establish that digital purchases confer no ownership at all, at the same moment the broader technology industry grapples with consumers who increasingly ask why that should be so.
The broader enforcement trend
California’s AB 2426 was the first state law of its kind, but it reflects a gathering regulatory instinct that digital consumers deserve honest terms. If the plaintiffs prevail, the practical consequence would likely be storefronts adopting explicit license language at checkout — a small change in wording with a large effect on consumer understanding.
What happens next
The plaintiffs will respond to Sony’s motion arguments in the coming months, and the court’s reading of “clear and conspicuous” versus “eighteen sections deep” will shape how digital storefronts nationwide word their transactions. A ruling for the plaintiffs would not make anyone own their games — but it would force the industry to stop pretending they do.
For now, the honest answer to whether you own your digital library is the one Sony gave the court: no, you never did. The lawsuit is about whether anyone was obligated to tell you that before you clicked Buy Now.
one word on the button fixes this: license. they wont do it because buy converts better, which is the entire argument for the plaintiffs right there
conversion metrics versus plain language requirements in a courtroom is gonna be fun. every checkout pm in gaming is watching this ruling and sweating
cant wait for discovery on this one. the internal emails about why they kept the words buy now on that button are gonna be a movie
imagine the A/B test docs on the word buy versus license. conversion won, everyone knew, and that email thread is the whole case
the a b tests on that button text are gonna end up as exhibits. imagine being the pm who argued buy converts better than license
those A/B docs are already subpoena bait. some analyst made a slide titled buy outperforms license and it will get read aloud in court
no reasonable consumer believes they own digital games, says the company whose store has a giant Buy Now button. bold legal strategy
^ this is why i still buy physical. ab 2426 exists precisely because of this loophole language
sony in court arguing nobody believes buy means buy. bold strategy, lets see how it plays out
Their whole defense rests on the license language being visible at checkout. Section 17500.6 exists because courts got tired of exactly that shell game.
AB 2426 exists precisely because of this. the checkout either says license in plain language or it doesnt, sony
sony’s whole bet is that a disclaimer buried in the tos counts as conspicuous. ab 2426 says plain language at checkout, thats the entire fight
conspicuous has a legal meaning and terms of service text has never met it. sony checkout flow is the best exhibit the plaintiffs have
it doesnt. its buried in the terms nobody reads, thats the entire lawsuit
revocable license for full price and they can yank the game whenever they feel like it. wild that this argument is made with a straight face in a federal filing
and it happens mid playthrough too, people have had delisted titles vanish from their library with zero refund. revocable is doing heavy lifting in that filing
the no refund part is what kills me. revoke the license, keep the money, call it a contract. that policy will not survive this judge
same fight we have had over digital game licenses for 15 years. at least california actually wrote it down this time
had a delisted title vanish from my library mid month, no refund no warning. call it a license all you want, the button still says buy
the plaintiffs should lead with that case honestly. revocation with no refund is just theft with paperwork