From our other sites
The story
California’s AB 2426, which took effect in January 2025, requires clear warning labels before purchase whenever a digital sale uses the word “purchase” but what’s actually being sold is a revocable license to use. Citing this law, four PlayStation users sued Sony back in June. Sony’s response brief, filed in late August, points to the fact that two of the plaintiffs were each able to “purchase” the very same game 11 days apart, arguing that “no reasonable consumer in the digital age believes clicking a purchase button makes them the owner of a game.” On 5ch, alongside skepticism toward that logic, users pointed out that Steam had already rolled out warning labels and that Nintendo’s terms of service contain similar language — sparking debate over why Sony alone got sued.
On June 18th, four PlayStation users in California sued Sony. The whole dispute hinges on a single word. The PlayStation Store has a button labeled “Purchase,” followed by a “Confirm Purchase” prompt — but in reality, downloaded games are nothing more than a license to use that Sony can revoke at any time. And California’s AB 2426, in effect since January 2025, requires a clear warning whenever the word “purchase” actually just means a license.
In late August, Sony’s legal team filed a response brief, and its contents have stirred up controversy. Sony argues that in the digital age, no “reasonable consumer” believes that clicking the “Purchase” button makes them the owner of the game. And to prove it, the legal team pointed to two of the plaintiffs themselves as evidence.
Source: korben.info / Read the original article here
What people said
Are they stupid or something?
That kind of excuse doesn't fly, which is exactly why the law spells things out in such detail.
However hard the lawyers argue, if it's spelled out in state law, they're guaranteed to lose.
Guess it's a case of "your state, your problem" lol (a pun on "おま国/your-region," the meme about region-locked content, twisted here into "your-state")
If Sony loses, it'll have ripple effects on everything tied to digital sales, though.
Steam already handled this.
Steam now spells out in the shopping cart that "users don't acquire the game itself, only a license to use it" — probably a response to California's new law.
https://gigazine.net/news/20241015-steam-game-license/
They just made the wording clearer — it was already in the terms of service to begin with. Same goes for Sony, Nintendo, and Valve.
They're only getting sued because there's no warning label, that's the whole point Re: #13. If you're gonna say "everyone else does it too!", you need to actually show the others also lack a warning label — otherwise the argument means nothing.
By Sony's logic, a true "owner" is someone who holds exclusive possession of something.
If the first buyer had truly become the owner of that game, it should have been impossible for the second buyer to purchase it 11 days later.
The fact that they both could buy it, Sony argues, proves both of them understood they were only buying a license — meaning the "Purchase" button deceived nobody. That's the conclusion Sony draws.
Makes no sense lol. Can somebody explain?
Is it even possible for a lawyer arguing a copyright/ownership case to not know what a "copy" is?
Did people seriously not know that?
You're just buying a piece of paper. It just happens to have a download code printed on it.
Are you replying without even having read post #1?
> requires clear warning labels
It's not about the terms of service — it's a state law requiring a clear warning to be shown before purchase.
Everyone else kept it vague and avoided saying it outright — it was a gray area. But Sony was the only one who flat-out said "even if you buy it, it's not the user's property," which is why this keeps coming up as an issue.
No, it's clearly written in Nintendo's terms of service too. What's this "Sony only" business about?
Take off your rose-tinted glasses and actually read that "Nintendo terms of service" closely. …Though I doubt you'll get it anyway.
You don't even need to look for it — it's spelled out right at the very start lol
Nintendo Switch Terms of Use
https://support.nintendo.com/jp/switch/eula/usage_policy.html
Article 1: License Grant
(1) This software is licensed, not transferred, to the customer.
Exactly my point lol
"This software" there probably means the master copy (not the actual retail product), and it's worded so it can be read that way — so they're covered if trouble ever comes up.
See, you still don't get it lol
Bring the California version of that, not the Japanese one.
Nintendo Switch: User Agreement
https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/48058/~/nintendo-switch%3A-user-agreement
1. License Grant/Restrictions.
Subject to the terms of this Agreement, you may use the software, content, and data included with the console, or software, content, and data that is compatible with or authorized for use with the console, including updates or replacements to that software, content, or data, provided to you by us or our authorized providers (collectively, "Software"). The Software is licensed, not sold, to you for personal, noncommercial use on the console.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (´・ω・｀)
Why don't you go tell that to someone in California lol
If it were really the same, other platforms besides PlayStation would be getting sued too. Sony got sued because they were doing their own thing. Typical Sony. ("さすソニ" — a sarcastic "as expected of Sony" meme)
– Change the wording from "purchase" (to "rental," "license agreement," etc.)
Is this really something worth fighting all the way to court over?
They're selling a license, and that's what's being bought. This isn't a rental.
They just don't want to be found liable and have to pay damages. In other words, right now they're just flailing.
If they call it a "rental" or something, people will start thinking there's a time limit on how long they can play, or that it needs to be returned. They can't be bothered explaining that to every single person one by one.
Yeah, that's about the vibe lol
Sony: Yours? You sure about that? This is a [loan].
User: …huh?
Isn't that basically an old-school loan-shark move…
Nintendo does the exact same thing though — are you saying Nintendo's a loan shark too?
Background and Key Points of This Debate
AB 2426 is a California consumer-protection law that took effect in January 2025. It requires businesses to display a clear warning before purchase whenever a digital good is labeled a “purchase” but is actually just a license. Steam got ahead of this back in October 2024 by adding a warning to its cart screen, and how other companies have handled it became a point of contention in the thread over this lawsuit as well. Both Nintendo’s and Sony’s own terms of service have long contained language to the effect that “the software is licensed, not transferred” — but having that buried in the terms of service is a separate matter from being required to display it clearly on the purchase screen. AB 2426 mandates the latter, and the thread saw a back-and-forth between people arguing “isn’t Nintendo the same?” and others countering that “the issue is whether a warning is shown, not what’s buried in the terms.” Not conflating the mere existence of terms-of-service language with the purchase-time warning requirement is key to understanding this lawsuit.
*This article is compiled and summarized from the 5ch (Hardware/Industry (Gehan)) thread “Sony: “No one thinks they own the games they bought on the PlayStation Store”.”
Leave a Reply