Sony Interactive Entertainment asked a federal judge on August 21 to push a proposed class action lawsuit over the PlayStation Store’s “buy” and “purchase” labels out of court and into individual arbitration. In doing so, Sony is invoking a clause in the same terms of service that the four litigants suing it in Heycock v. Sony Corporation of America argue aren’t presented clearly enough at checkout to satisfy California law.
The June lawsuit alleges that Sony sells revocable game licenses behind “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons without the disclosures required by AB 2426, California’s digital goods law. That law, which came into effect on January 1, 2025, requires that companies clearly disclose when consumers are obtaining a revocable license to access “digital goods,” the definition of which includes games, and prohibits storefronts from using words like “buy” or “purchase” when a license is being granted.
Four PlayStation owners, Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas, filed the complaint on June 18 in the Northern District of California, pleading violations of Business and Professions Code § 17500.6, the state’s False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed class of California purchasers.
Latest Videos FromTom’s Hardware
The purchases the plaintiffs are pleading all post-date the statute’s January 1, 2025 effective date: Garcia bought NBA 2K25 for $20.99 on March 27, 2025, then NBA 2K26 and Madden NFL 26 for $65.99 and $69.99, respectively, on August 11, 2025. The complaint alleges that these transactions convey “only a limited, revocable license,” while the language used on the PlayStation Store communicates ownership. The four plaintiffs claim they sent two CLRA demand letters on April 21, 2026, and May 11, 2026, respectively, which Sony didn’t answer.
See you in court
Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service requires U.S. users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions, unless the user mails a written opt-out to Sony’s legal department in San Mateo within 30 days of accepting the terms. Sony’s motion attached three versions of those terms as exhibits dated August 2023, March 2025, and April 2026, along with the Software Product License Agreement, covering the window in which the proposed class members accepted them. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed co-defendant Sony Corporation of America on August 20, one day before Sony’s motion, leaving Sony Interactive Entertainment as the sole defendant.
Some readers — especially those outside the U.S. — may be surprised to learn that corporations can contractually block their customers from suing them in court. The foundation for this is the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” and the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that the Act overrides state rules treating class action waivers in consumer contracts as unenforceable. Sony added the arbitration clause to the PlayStation Network terms in September 2011, months after that ruling.
The clause isn’t bulletproof: California’s McGill v. Citibank ruling bars contracts from waiving a consumer’s right to seek a public injunction, and the present Heycock complaint is asking for an injunction against Sony’s checkout practices. The plaintiffs’ response to Sony’s motion is due by September 4, and we can expect the plaintiffs to argue that at least the injunctive claims belong in court.
Both Sony’s motion and the plaintiffs’ response will then be heard by Judge Vince Chhabria on October 1st in San Francisco. Its fallback asks Judge Chhabria to dismiss the case outright on the grounds that the checkout flow already complies with California law, with Sony’s filing arguing that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they own digital games because buyers agree to the license terms via the Software Product License Agreement before the purchase is finalized. Quoting Section 8.4 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, the motion states that a purchase buys “a personal license” and that users “do not own the product,” and Section 1 of the SPLA, which reads: “The software is licensed to you, not sold.” Sony’s lawyers, then, appear to contend that digital purchasers inherently understand that they can’t own a game the way they’d own a physical object, since a digital copy isn’t exclusive to any one buyer.
The filing also argues that claims over digital game ownership are highly unlikely (prima facie implausible), pointing to the plaintiffs’ own purchase histories in what is either a wild display of mental gymnastics or a bad-faith attempt to argue that, in saying they own the games they’ve purchased, the plaintiffs are trying to stake a claim to owning the game IP outright, which they obviously don’t. Sony highlights that Heycock bought Resident Evil Requiem for $69.99 on February 25, 2026, 11 days after co-plaintiff Jason Mendoza bought the same game, and argues that if a purchase conveyed ownership, Mendoza would have owned the title and Heycock’s transaction couldn’t have happened.
California’s AB 2426
California Assembly Bill 2426 took effect on January 1, 2025, and bars sellers of revocable digital goods from using language like “buy” and “purchase,” or any term that a reasonable person would read as conferring ownership, unless the seller collects an affirmative acknowledgment that the transaction is a license or displays a clear and conspicuous statement, distinct from other T&Cs, before checkout.
Subscriptions, free content, and games offered for permanent offline download are exempt, and violations carry potential misdemeanor liability and civil penalties. Valve added a license disclaimer banner to Steam’s shopping cart within weeks of the bill’s signing in 2024. Sony’s checkout, meanwhile, links to the Terms of Service and license agreement in fine print but requires no acknowledgment and shows no separate statement.
The only real precedent on AB 2426 is Casell v. Ubisoft, which reached no ruling on digital ownership. Players sued in November 2024 over the server shutdown that rendered The Crew unplayable, but their purchases and the filing itself predated § 17500.6, so the statute was never applied to the case. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the federal action in June 2025, refiled in Sacramento County Superior Court, and reached a class settlement with Ubisoft that’s now in the approval process.
The plaintiffs’ opposition to Sony’s motion is due September 4, and Sony’s reply is due September 11, ahead of the October 1 hearing. The dispute runs alongside Sony’s controversial intent to wind down physical media production for new PlayStation releases and comes months after a firmware change briefly convinced players that digital games required an online check-in every 30 days.
Follow Tom’s Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
