Sony’s lawyers have filed one of the most tone-deaf legal arguments in recent gaming history — and the timing, coming just months before the company ends physical disc production entirely, makes it land even harder. In a court filing dated August 21, 2026, Sony’s legal team argued that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into thinking they actually own the digital games they buy from the PlayStation Store. The argument goes further: Sony contends that believing you own a digital game is not just incorrect, but logically implausible in the first place.
The company is fighting a proposed class action lawsuit — Heycock et al. v. Sony Corporation of America et al. — filed on June 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. And the way Sony has chosen to defend itself is going to generate conversation for a long time.
The Lawsuit: What the Four Plaintiffs Are Claiming
Four PlayStation customers — Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas — filed the complaint on June 18 in California’s Northern District. Their core claim is straightforward: Sony violates California’s AB 2426, a law that took effect January 1, 2025, which updated the state’s false advertising statutes to cover digital goods specifically.
AB 2426 adds Business and Professions Code Section 17500.6, which prohibits sellers from using words like “buy,” “purchase,” or any language a reasonable person would interpret as granting unrestricted ownership — unless the digital storefront clearly discloses that what’s being sold is a revocable license rather than permanent ownership. The law was specifically designed to close the gap between what “Buy Now” implies and what the fine print buried in terms of service actually says.
The plaintiffs’ purchases all happened after the law took effect. Garcia bought NBA 2K25, NBA 2K26, and Madden NFL 26. Mendoza bought Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026. Heycock bought Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026. Their complaint alleges that the PlayStation Store’s “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons communicate ownership, while the actual licensing disclosure is buried several hundred words deep in documents linked — but not displayed — during checkout. They sent two demand letters in April and May 2026 that Sony didn’t answer, leading to the lawsuit.
Sony’s Defense: You Already Knew, and Here’s Proof
Sony’s August 21 response comes in two parts. The first is a motion to push the entire dispute into private arbitration — standard legal procedure for large companies facing class actions, since arbitration is private and class actions can’t proceed in that format. The second is the substantive argument itself, and this is the part generating the most discussion.
Sony’s lawyers argue that its existing disclosures — specifically Section 8.4 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, which states that a purchase buys “a personal license” and that users “do not own the product,” and Section 1 of the Software Product Licensing Agreement, which states “the software is licensed to you, not sold” — comply with California law. The disclosure exists, Sony argues. It’s right there in the documents that are linked during checkout. That it comes several hundred words into those documents is not, in Sony’s view, a violation of AB 2426’s plain language requirements.
The second argument is the one that’s made headlines. Sony contends that digital ownership is inherently logically implausible, and uses the plaintiffs’ own purchase history to make the point:
“In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership’ of a digital game. Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on 14th February, 2026, because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then.”
The argument is technically coherent: because digital goods can be licensed to multiple people simultaneously, it’s impossible for any one buyer to “own” a digital game in the exclusive, transferable sense that physical ownership implies. The logical structure holds. The problem is what it actually means as a consumer rights argument, which is approximately: you couldn’t own it, so you should have known you didn’t own it, so we don’t have to tell you clearly that you don’t own it.
Why This Argument Is Legally Risky — and Publicly Catastrophic
The legal question here is whether AB 2426 requires clear disclosure at the point of sale — not whether digital ownership is philosophically possible. Sony’s “reasonable consumer” argument is asking the court to accept that ordinary people already understand the licensing model well enough that labeling a transaction “Buy Now” isn’t misleading. That’s a high bar to clear, and it’s the same argument courts have historically been skeptical of when companies bury material terms in documents that users don’t read.
AB 2426 was written specifically because California’s legislature determined that the existing practice of burying licensing disclosures in terms of service was not sufficient. The law doesn’t ban licensing. It doesn’t require companies to grant permanent ownership. What it requires is that the licensing nature of the transaction be communicated clearly, in context, at or near the point of purchase — not several hundred words deep in a linked document that the average buyer never opens. Whether Sony’s linked ToS and SPLA satisfy that requirement is the actual legal question. Sony’s “you already knew” argument is a framing device, not a resolution of that question.
The motion to compel arbitration may also not go Sony’s way. Courts have been increasingly scrutinizing mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly in California, and the Northern District has previously declined to enforce arbitration clauses when companies haven’t adequately brought them to consumers’ attention. Sony’s arbitration clause lives in the same Terms of Service whose adequacy is the subject of the lawsuit — which creates a circular problem.
On the public relations front, the filing has been received exactly as badly as you’d expect. The argument that “reasonable consumers” don’t believe they own their digital games is landing in a community that has been loudly arguing about digital ownership and Sony’s disc-ending policy since June. “So we pay $70 and don’t own it, and they’re now going to stop making discs too” is a sentiment appearing in comment sections across every gaming forum. Sony’s legal team may have made a technically defensible argument. They’ve made a terrible optics argument.
The California Law Sony Is Fighting
AB 2426 — formally “An act to add Section 17500.6 to the Business and Professions Code” — was signed into law in 2024 and took effect January 1, 2025. Its core requirements are:
- Sellers of digital goods cannot use terms like “buy,” “purchase,” or equivalent language unless the goods are actually being sold (i.e., full transferable ownership)
- If a digital transaction grants only a license, the seller must clearly disclose this — in plain language, at or near the point of transaction
- The disclosure must be reasonably visible and accessible, not buried in linked documents
- The law covers digital games, applications, and other digital goods
California’s law is part of a broader regulatory trend. The FTC has also been scrutinizing “buy” button language in digital marketplaces, and several other states have introduced or are considering similar legislation. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by every digital storefront that uses similar checkout language — Steam, Xbox, Epic Games Store, Apple App Store, and others all use “Buy” or “Purchase” terminology for digital goods that are legally licenses rather than owned products.
The Bigger Picture: A Policy Collision
The lawsuit’s filing date — June 18, 2026 — is notable. Sony announced its plan to end physical disc production for new PlayStation games starting January 2028 just weeks later, in late June. The timing is probably coincidental, but the collision of these two stories has created a narrative that’s hard for Sony to escape: a company arguing in court that you don’t really own digital games is simultaneously announcing that it’s ending the format that did give you something closer to actual ownership.
The PlayStation Store has used “Buy Now” and similar terminology for years. If the court rules that Sony’s current disclosures don’t comply with AB 2426, the minimum consequence is that PlayStation Store checkout language will have to change — likely to something like “License Now” or “Get Access.” The larger consequence, if class certification proceeds and damages are awarded, could be significantly more substantial for Sony and set a precedent affecting the entire digital games industry.
No ruling has been issued. The arbitration motion is pending. The plaintiffs’ response to Sony’s filing will shape what happens next in the case. But the argument Sony has chosen to make — that reasonable people already know they don’t own their digital purchases — is now part of the public record, and gaming communities will be citing it for years.
Case Summary
- Case name: Heycock et al. v. Sony Corporation of America et al.
- Filed: June 18, 2026
- Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- Plaintiffs: Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, Josh Salinas
- Law cited: California AB 2426 (Business and Professions Code Section 17500.6), effective January 1, 2025
- Plaintiff claim: PlayStation Store’s “Buy Now” checkout language violates California’s disclosure requirements for digital goods that are licensed rather than owned
- Sony’s defense: Existing ToS and SPLA disclosures comply with law; “reasonable consumers” understand digital games are licensed; digital ownership is logically implausible
- Sony’s procedural motion: Motion to compel arbitration (pending)
- Court ruling: None yet
This is a case that goes well beyond PlayStation — it’s a test of whether California’s digital ownership disclosure law has teeth. Whatever the court decides, it will shape how digital storefronts communicate with buyers across the entire games industry. If you want to catch up on the rest of the week’s gaming stories, For Honor’s Linux and Steam Deck removal on September 10 is another story about platform access being taken away from paying customers, and the Witcher 3 Remastered save carry-over confirmation is at least some good news about players keeping what they paid for.
