Sony told a federal court on August 21 that no reasonable consumer would be misled into believing they actually own the digital games they purchase.
The company’s filing contends that ownership is implausible because two plaintiffs bought the same game just 11 days apart—if true ownership existed, the second purchase would not have been possible.
The proposed class action, filed in June by four California PlayStation users, alleges that the store’s checkout process violates a California disclosure law that took effect in January 2025.
Sony has argued before a federal judge that no reasonable consumer genuinely believes they own the digital games they purchase through the PlayStation Store, according to an August 21 court filing reviewed by Game File.
The filing represents Sony’s first substantive response to a proposed class action brought in June in the Northern District of California by four California PlayStation customers. The plaintiffs claim that the store’s use of “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons falsely suggests ownership, when in fact users only receive a revocable license to access the software.
Myriad: Bitcoin’s next price move? Click to make your prediction
The lawsuit’s first cause of action is filed under Section 17500.6, a provision added to California’s false advertising law through AB 2426, which became enforceable in January 2025. The statute prohibits sellers from using terms such as “buy” or “purchase,” or any language a reasonable person might interpret as conveying full ownership, unless the checkout process includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure in plain language explaining that the digital transaction is a license.
Sony counters that its checkout process already satisfies this requirement. Small print within the shopping cart links to the PlayStation Terms of Service and the Software Product License Agreement. The terms explicitly state that customers “do not own the product,” a disclosure found in the eighth of 18 sections of the document, while the license agreement clarifies that the software is “licensed to you, not sold” several hundred words into the text.
A Sony PlayStation purchase. Image: Game File
The filing goes even further, asserting that genuine ownership of a digital game is inherently implausible. According to the complaint, plaintiff Jason Mendoza purchased Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, while plaintiff Edward Heycock purchased the same title for $69.99 on February 25. If Mendoza had truly owned the game, Sony’s attorneys argued in a passage cited by the outlet, Heycock would not have been able to make his purchase—making it “not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership'” of a digital product.
What the filing seeks
Sony’s principal request, according to Game File, is that the judge compel the dispute into private arbitration, citing provisions in PlayStation’s terms that require users to resolve claims through that channel. The ownership arguments outlined above would only come into play if the court denies that request.
Arbitration would shield Sony from the possibility of a jury trial, and PlayStation’s terms of service include an explicit class action waiver requiring that any claims be pursued on an individual basis.
Sony announced on July 1 that it will discontinue the production of physical discs for new PlayStation titles beginning January 2028, leaving the PlayStation Store and other digital retailers as the sole means of purchasing new releases. Sony Group is also reportedly developing a dollar-denominated stablecoin intended for use across its digital ecosystem.
The judge has not yet issued a ruling on Sony’s arbitration request.
