The argument made was that because the PlayStation Store uses terms like \u201cBuy Now\u201d and \u201cConfirm Purchase\u201d, players are under the impression they\u2019re buying a copy of a game that they then own, rather than a licence to access the game which can be revoked by Sony at any point in the future.<\/p>\n
Now, as reported by Game File<\/a>, Sony recently filed its response to the lawsuit, claiming that customers are not only told \u201cyour purchase of this digital product amounts to a licence\u201d, but that \u201creasonable consumers\u201d already understand this anyway without having to be told.<\/p>\n Sony\u2019s argument is that because digital copies of games are not a finite resource, and that because multiple people can buy a digital copy of the same game, that means nobody actually \u2018owns\u2019 it \u2013 if they did, nobody else would be able to have it.<\/p>\n \u201cAs plaintiffs admit, Section 1 of the SPLA likewise explains that \u2018the Software is licensed to you, not sold\u2019, Sony\u2019s filing reads. \u201cThis makes sense. In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining \u2018ownership\u2019 of a digital game.<\/p>\n \u201cWere that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil<\/a> Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then.\u201d<\/p>\n Last week Sony emailed players who had PlayStation accounts, reminding them that when they signed up the Terms of Service they agreed that \u201cwhen you purchase or download a digital product from the PlayStation Store, you buy a personal licence to use digital products for private use\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n