182
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
182 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
88310 readers
4788 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The article is sensationalized a bit. They're not arguing you shouldn't have rights. They already state that clearly in their terms of service. They're arguing they disclose this fact adequately under California's disclosure laws.
California law forbids companies selling a licence to access content from using the words "buy" or "purchase" unless they make it clear to "a reasonable consumer" that what they're buying is a licence to access and not "unrestricted ownership".
Sony is facing a lawsuit claiming they're not following this law. Their sales pages use "buy" and "purchase" but don't make it clear they're selling licences.
Sony is countering by saying it's clearly stated in the first paragraph of their terms of service. If that isn't enough, they also argue a "reasonable consumer" would inherently know they're not buying "unrestricted ownership" of Sony's multiplayer games since multiplayer implies they're selling to multiple people and multiple people can't all have "unrestricted ownership" of the same product.
In law, "reasonable person" is usually a much higher standard than the average person. Even if the average person doesn't understand licences and ownership, a "reasonable person" does. Its why Fox won its defamation case where they argued that no "reasonable person" would assume Tucker Carleson's statements were factual.
A lot of "reasonable consumers" got a nasty shock when Sony revoked their licences to content that they "purchased". That's really the true problem here. Nobody hates Steam for using a similar system, because they never revoke licences. I can even still re-download and play games that have been de-listed or taken down. Disappearing purchases is a big problem, it's completely lost value for the consumer and free money for the business. One step removed from a scam.
Very scummy, and a problem, but also not what the lawsuit is about. It's about whether or not Sony makes it clear purchases come with restrictions.
Steam shows a disclaimer to California residents at checkout. Sony is basically arguing they don't need to do that because it's already obvious.