Sony Says PlayStation Digital Purchase Disclosures Are Clear Enough

Sony Interactive Entertainment says PlayStation Store customers receive clear enough notice that paying for a digital game grants a license rather than ownership. The company made the argument in an August 21 filing responding to a proposed California class action over the store’s use of purchase language.

Game File first reported Sony’s response, which says “reasonable consumers would not be misled” about the rights attached to digital purchases. Polygon subsequently highlighted the dispute and its implications for PlayStation customers.

The complaint filed on June 18 was brought by four California customers against Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Corporation of America. It alleges that labels such as “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” lead buyers to expect an ownership interest even though PlayStation provides a limited software license. Those claims remain allegations, and the court has not ruled that Sony violated the law.

Sony points to disclosures shown during checkout and to linked agreements. The company’s current PlayStation Terms of Service state that a customer buys a personal license for private, non-commercial use and does not own the product. Its separate software agreement similarly describes PlayStation software as licensed rather than sold.

The case turns in part on California Business and Professions Code section 17500.6, created through AB 2426. The law restricts sellers from using terms such as “buy” or “purchase” for revocable digital goods unless the buyer affirmatively acknowledges the license or receives a clear, conspicuous statement before the transaction, along with access to the full license terms.

The plaintiffs argue PlayStation’s notice is too small and too closely tied to lengthy agreements to satisfy that standard. Sony’s position is that its checkout language and linked terms already make the licensing arrangement sufficiently clear. That disagreement—not whether PlayStation’s agreements describe games as licenses—is now the central issue for the court.