On August 21, Sony filed a petition in the Northern District of California, United States, defending the thesis that “reasonable consumers” would not be misled about the true nature of purchases on the PlayStation Store. The company responds to a class action that accuses it of violating a Californian law that requires clarity in the disclosure of licenses on digital platforms. The Japanese giant’s legal representatives claim that the information already available is adequate to clarify that the games are not the property of the buyers.
The filing of the petition occurred shortly before PlayStation sent emails to its customers, reiterating that they do not own the content purchased from its store.
The controversy surrounding digital ownership of games evokes memories of a past where physical ownership gave complete control to the consumer. This scenario, in which the buyer had autonomy over their content, is increasingly distant, with few alternatives for users other than reconsidering their consumption choices.
Understand Sony’s licensing provisions and terms of service
The Software Product Licensing Agreement, known by the acronym SPLA, and the company’s general terms of service explicitly state that the user does not become the owner of the purchased item, and that the transaction does not constitute a sale with the right to permanent possession.
Such provisions are contained in lengthy legal documents, which raises questions about the company’s compliance with California law. The state standard requires digital platforms to clearly and visibly inform that customers are only purchasing usage licenses, and not ownership of actual products. The lawsuit argues that Sony fails to comply with this legal requirement.
Sony’s points about the unfeasibility of digital ownership
Section 1 of the SPLA, as detailed in the petition, clarifies that the software is offered by license rather than as an outright sale. Sony argues that, in the current context of digital technology, it would be unreasonable for consumers to expect to acquire complete ownership of an online game.
To illustrate their point, the company’s lawyers used an example: if the ownership of a digital game was total, only a single copy of the GTA 6 title could be sold.
The petition details a hypothetical scenario: “If that were the case, then author Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25th for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after author Jason Mendoza obtained the same game on February 14th because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would own it then,” according to the court document.
The arbitration clause and the next steps in the legal process
Sony’s terms of service also include an attempt to prevent users from joining class action lawsuits against the corporation. The company argues that any disputes should be resolved through private arbitration, a mechanism often favored by large companies.
However, the validity of the arbitration clause will be determined by the responsible judge. The arguments presented by Sony aim to direct the case in this direction, but the court decision on the issue has not yet been released.
In simpler terms, the legal dispute is configured as a legal confrontation. If the judge considers that Sony’s clause is abusive, it may be annulled, allowing the case to proceed in ordinary court. Otherwise, if the clause is considered valid, the legal action will be closed, and consumers must seek solutions individually through private arbitration.
