// TOM'S HARDWARE US — HARDWARE & GADGET
Sony argues ‘reasonable consumers would not be misled’ into believing they own digital games in class action motion — PlayStation Store ‘buy’ button lawsuit may never reach a courtroom
Sony has filed a motion to compel arbitration outside of court.
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
Sony Interactive Entertainment asked a federal judge on August 21 to push a proposed class action lawsuit over the PlayStation Store’s “buy” and “purchase” labels out of court and into individual arbitration. In doing so, Sony is invoking a clause in the same terms of service that the four litigants suing it in Heycock v. Sony Corporation of America argue aren’t presented clearly enough at checkout to satisfy California law.
The June lawsuit alleges that Sony sells revocable game licenses behind “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons without the disclosures required by AB 2426, California’s digital goods law. That law, which came into effect on January 1, 2025, requires that companies clearly disclose when consumers are obtaining a revocable license to access “digital goods,” the definition of which includes games, and prohibits storefronts from using words like “buy” or “purchase” when a license is being granted.
Four PlayStation owners, Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas, filed the complaint on June 18 in the Northern District of California, pleading violations of Business and Professions Code § 17500.6, the state’s False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed class of California purchasers.
The purchases the plaintiffs are pleading all post-date the statute’s January 1, 2025 effective date: Garcia bought NBA 2K25 for $20.99 on March 27, 2025, then NBA 2K26 and Madden NFL 26 for $65.99 and $69.99, respectively, on August 11, 2025. The complaint alleges that these transactions convey “only a limited, revocable license,” while the language used on the PlayStation Store communicates ownership. The four plaintiffs claim they sent two CLRA demand letters on April 21, 2026, and May 11, 2026, respectively, which Sony didn’t answer.
Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service requires U.S. users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions, unless the user mails a written opt-out to Sony’s legal department in San Mateo within 30 days of accepting the terms. Sony’s motion attached three versions of those terms as exhibits dated August 2023, March 2025, and April 2026, along with the Software Product License Agreement, covering the window in which the proposed class members accepted them. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed co-defendant Sony Corporation of America on August 20, one day before Sony’s motion, leaving Sony Interactive Entertainment as the sole defendant.
Some readers — especially those outside the U.S. — may be surprised to learn that corporations can contractually block their customers from suing them in court. The foundation for this is the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” and the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that the Act overrides state rules treating class action waivers in consumer contracts as unenforceable. Sony added the arbitration clause to the PlayStation Network terms in September 2011, months after that ruling.
The clause isn’t bulletproof: California’s McGill v. Citibank ruling bars contracts from waiving a consumer’s right to seek a public injunction, and the present Heycock complaint is asking for an injunction against Sony’s checkout practices. The plaintiffs’ response to Sony’s motion is due by September 4, and we can expect the plaintiffs to argue that at least the injunctive claims belong in court.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.