After Sony tells fans they don’t own digital games, one Consumer Rights group is tracking all the times PlayStation said the opposite


Last month, Sony argued that “reasonable consumers” already know they don’t really own the digital goods they paid for. The Consumer Rights wiki has now made a list collecting more than 30 examples where Sony told customers they do, in fact, own the digital games they paid for.

A class action lawsuit recently filed against Sony alleged the PlayStation Store isn’t clear enough about the fact that digital purchases don’t equal digital ownership. Once a player makes a purchase on the PlayStation Store, they’re paying for a digital license that’s revocable at any point in time – the purchase doesn’t guarantee you’ll have access to a particular game or DLC or cosmetic pack forever.

Sony’s legal team fired back, arguing that it’s not breaking any laws around digital ownership because “reasonable consumers would not be misled” by the storefront’s small print disclosures. (You know, the links to the company’s Terms of Service and Software Product Licensing Agreement that show up just before you pay for something on the PlayStation Store.)

Seemingly in response to those arguments, the Consumer Rights wiki has now created a “non-exhaustive table of references on Sony’s site to ‘owning’ digital games.” The list includes more than 30 occasions in which Sony’s site has said something along the lines of, “View a broadcast for a game you own through the game’s hub,” or, “If you own the PS4 and PS5 versions of the same game, here’s how to switch between them…”

One of the more recent examples can be found in Marvel’s Wolverine’s FAQ section: “Standard Edition owners can also upgrade to the Digital Deluxe Edition content.”

The lawsuit claimants said Sony was in breach of a California Law that made it “unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,’ or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good.” (Reasonability doesn’t seem like something you could measure in court, but I digress.) A digital vendor can get around the law by giving customers clear information about the licenses they’re paying for. We’ll see how the suit plays out over the coming weeks and months.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    Rockstar had a mole in the union worker Discord server “for over two and a half years”, GTA 6 company reveals during legal battle

    Back in October 2025, GTA 6 developers Rockstar fired a group of 34, mostly UK-based employees on a charge of “gross misconduct”, alleging that they had risked the leaking…

    Continue reading
    Modder adds 235 destructible Flock cameras to GTA 5 so you can ‘do whatever the flock you want’ to them

    GTALPR Trailer – 235 Flock Cameras in GTA V – YouTube Watch On You’ve no doubt spent dozens of hours in GTA 5 doing millions of dollars of property damage…

    Continue reading

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    Treasure Trove Assembles the “Avengers of Collectibles” as Advisory Board

    This week on “Sunday Morning” (Sept. 13)

    This week on “Sunday Morning” (Sept. 13)

    Moss Developer Polyarc Has Closed

    Moss Developer Polyarc Has Closed

    United Airlines Eyes Huge New Miami International Airport Hub: Here’s Why

    United Airlines Eyes Huge New Miami International Airport Hub: Here’s Why

    World Athletics Ultimate Championship: Armand Duplantis stars as sport’s new global event begins

    World Athletics Ultimate Championship: Armand Duplantis stars as sport’s new global event begins

    Rockstar had a mole in the union worker Discord server “for over two and a half years”, GTA 6 company reveals during legal battle

    Rockstar had a mole in the union worker Discord server “for over two and a half years”, GTA 6 company reveals during legal battle