Sony Argues Reasonable Consumers Know They Do Not Own Digital Games
- Sony Interactive Entertainment argued in a federal court filing that reasonable consumers already understand they do not actually own the digital video games they purchase, according to legal...
- Four PlayStation owners—Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas—filed the complaint in Heycock v.
- The legal challenge centers on AB 2426, a California digital goods law that took effect on January 1, 2025.
Sony Interactive Entertainment argued in a federal court filing that reasonable consumers already understand they do not actually own the digital video games they purchase, according to legal documents cited by Game File and Eurogamer. The filing responds to a class-action lawsuit filed against the company in the Northern District of California on June 18, 2026, which alleges that PlayStation Store checkout practices violate state consumer protection laws by using terms like "Buy" and "Purchase" for revocable digital licenses.
The June 2026 California Lawsuit and AB 2426
Four PlayStation owners—Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas—filed the complaint in Heycock v. The plaintiffs argue that Sony breaks California law by failing to make it clear on the PlayStation Store that players are buying temporary access rather than owning a copy of a game.
The legal challenge centers on AB 2426, a California digital goods law that took effect on January 1, 2025. This legislation requires companies to clearly disclose when consumers are obtaining a revocable license to access digital goods, including video games, and prohibits storefronts from using words like "buy" or "purchase" when a license is being granted. The plaintiffs plead violations of the state’s False Advertising Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, citing transactions that occurred after the statute’s effective date, such as Andrew Garcia purchasing NBA 2K25 for $20.99 on March 27, 2025.
Sony Defense: Digital Files and Licensing Agreements
In its response filed on August 21, 2026, Sony asked a federal judge to push the proposed class-action lawsuit out of court and into individual arbitration, or alternatively to dismiss the case outright.
As plaintiffs admit, Section 1 of the SPLA likewise explains that ‘the Software is licensed to you, not sold’.
Sony’s filing further contends that reasonable consumers would not be misled because digital ownership is inherently implausible. As an example, the company pointed out that Edward Heycock was able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026, for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Jason Mendoza had already obtained the same title on February 14, 2026, noting that Mendoza would have owned it exclusively if traditional ownership applied.
Arbitration Clause and Upcoming Court Dates
To block the court proceedings, Sony is invoking Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service, which requires U.S. users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions. However, the plaintiffs’ complaint asks for an injunction against Sony’s checkout practices, which may trigger exemptions under California’s McGill v. Citibank ruling that bar contracts from waiving a consumer’s right to seek public injunctions.
The legal battle comes as Sony prepares for an all-digital future, having announced plans to stop releasing physical discs for new games starting in January 2028, according to Videogameschronicle. Plaintiffs are required to respond to Sony’s motion by September 4, 2026, with both sides scheduled to appear before Judge Vince Chhabria on October 1, 2026, in San Francisco.