Sony has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit, arguing that reasonable consumers
are aware that digital game purchases grant a license rather than permanent ownership. In a filing dated August 21, Sony’s legal team contended that it is “not plausible” for buyers to believe they are obtaining ownership of digital software in the modern age.
Legal Dispute Over California Disclosure Laws
The lawsuit, Heycock v. Sony Corporation of America, was filed on June 18 in the Northern District of California by four PlayStation owners: Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, Andrew Garcia, and Josh Salinas. The plaintiffs allege that the PlayStation Store fails to comply with AB 2426, a California law that took effect January 1, 2025. This statute requires companies to clearly disclose in plain language when a digital purchase is a revocable license and prohibits the use of terms like “buy” or “purchase” when ownership is not being transferred.
The claimants argue that Sony uses “Buy Now” and Confirm Purchase
buttons while relegating ownership disclaimers to separate agreements or documents that are not clearly presented at checkout. According to the complaint, the information stating that virtual content is licensed is located several hundred words into the Terms of Service and Software Product Licensing Agreement (SPLA).
Specific transactions cited in the suit include:
- Andrew Garcia: Purchased NBA 2K25 for $20.99 on March 27, 2025, followed by NBA 2K26 and Madden NFL 26 for $65.99 and $69.99 on August 11, 2025.
- Jason Mendoza and Edward Heycock: Both purchased Resident Evil Requiem in February 2026.
Sony’s “Plausibility” Argument
Sony’s defense rests on the premise that the nature of digital distribution makes ownership impossible. To support this, Sony’s lawyers cited the purchase history of two plaintiffs: Jason Mendoza bought Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, and Edward Heycock purchased the same digital copy for $69.99 on February 25, 2026. Sony argued that if Mendoza had actually owned the game, Heycock would not have been able to obtain it from Sony.
The company further asserts that buyers agree to the SPLA before finalizing a purchase, which explicitly states, the software is licensed to you, not sold
. Sony also pointed to Section 8.4 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, which specifies that a purchase provides a personal license and that users do not own the product.
Arbitration and Court Timeline
Beyond the merits of the ownership claim, Sony is attempting to move the dispute out of court and into individual arbitration. This request invokes Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, a clause added in September 2011 that requires U.S. users to waive class actions unless they opted out in writing within 30 days of accepting the terms.
Judge Vince Chhabria is scheduled to hear the arbitration motion and Sony’s fallback dismissal argument on October 1 in San Francisco. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against Sony’s checkout practices, a request that may be protected under California’s McGill v. Citibank ruling, which prevents contracts from waiving a consumer’s right to seek a public injunction.
Shift Toward All-Digital Future
This legal battle coincides with Sony’s transition away from physical media. In a July blog post, Sony announced it will stop manufacturing discs for new PlayStation games by January 2028. Sid Shuman, Sony Interactive Entertainment’s senior director of content communications, stated that this move aligns with consumer trends where digital media preference significantly outpaces physical discs.
The move toward digital-only releases is also being adopted by other publishers; Rockstar Games confirmed in June that Grand Theft Auto 6 will be available only via digital download. While Sony maintains that this is a natural evolution, the company recently sent an email to customers reminding them that digital games are licensed rather than sold.
