Sony has told a federal court that PlayStation Store customers do not own the digital games they pay for. The company made that argument on August 21 in California’s Northern District Court while answering a class-action lawsuit filed June 18.
The suit was brought by Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and John Salinas against Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Corporation of America. It says the PlayStation Store "fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers at the point of sale that these transactions do not convey ownership of the digital games." The plaintiffs say Sony "relegates this information to inconspicuous text or separate agreements that consumers are not required to affirmatively acknowledge."
That checkout text is real. Before you confirm a purchase, small print says selecting Confirm Purchase means you agree to the PlayStation Terms of Service and that "your purchase of this digital product amounts to a license subject to the Software Product License Agreement." The complaint says the store still leads with words like Buy Now and Confirm Purchase.
The claim sits under California Business and Professions Code section 17500.6, added by AB 2426 and in force since January 2025. The law bars sellers from advertising digital goods with "buy," "purchase," or similar language unless checkout carries a clear, conspicuous, plain-language notice that the buyer is getting a license.
Sony’s August 21 filing says it has already done enough. It points to Section 1 of the Software Product License Agreement: "The Software is licensed to you, not sold." Then it adds, "This makes sense." The company told the court it is not plausible that reasonable consumers thought they were getting ownership of a digital game.
Sony used two of the plaintiffs as the example. Jason Mendoza bought Resident Evil Requiem from the PlayStation Store on February 14, 2026. Edward Heycock bought the same game on February 25 for $69.99. Sony’s filing says that if Mendoza owned the game, Heycock could not have bought it, because Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it.
Players did not like that line. Sony already announced that new PlayStation games will stop coming on disc in January 2028. People on X went straight at the Buy button. One post asked why the page says you are buying the game if the license says it is not sold. Others said a license should still mean a copy you can keep if servers die. Some want Congress to define what a consumer software license actually is so each publisher cannot write its own version.
Sony is fighting other store fights at the same time. Lawmakers in Mexico filed a case in July arguing that ending physical discs is an anti-competitive move that pushes everyone onto Sony’s store. In the Netherlands, Stichting Massaschade & Consument says Dutch players pay more for digital games than buyers in other countries. A separate older U.S. case, Caccuri v. Sony, over digital game pricing and vouchers, has a $7.85 million settlement heading toward an October 15 hearing. That case is not this ownership suit.
Sony has not walked back the 2028 disc cutoff. In July, CFO Lin Tao said the company will "cautiously move this forward" and is keeping player anger "in consideration." She also said Sony wants to keep exploring how it engages players "in the future digital ecosystem."
The ownership case is still at the response stage. No ruling has said Sony’s checkout text is legal or illegal. The fight is over whether "Buy Now," a license agreement in small print, and "licensed, not sold" meet California’s clear-and-conspicuous rule. Sony says reasonable people already know a download is a license. The plaintiffs say the store is selling ownership language and hiding the catch.
That is the filing from August 21. PlayStation Store still says Buy. The license still says you do not own the software. January 2028 is still the date new PlayStation discs stop. The court in San Francisco has to decide whether that combination is obvious enough.
Would you keep buying digital PlayStation games after Sony’s "licensed, not sold" filing? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.