Sony Interactive Entertainment is fighting to keep a proposed class action over the PlayStation Store’s “buy” and “purchase” labels out of a courtroom. On August 21, the company asked a federal judge to compel individual arbitration in Heycock v. Sony Corporation of America, relying on a clause within the same terms of service that the plaintiffs claim is not displayed clearly enough at checkout to meet California law.
The June complaint alleges that Sony markets revocable game licenses behind “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase” buttons without the disclosures mandated by AB 2426, California’s digital goods statute. Effective January 1, 2025, that law requires companies to clearly state when a consumer is only acquiring a revocable license to access digital goods, a category that includes video games. It also bars storefronts from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” when only a license is being granted.
What the Plaintiffs Are Claiming
Four PlayStation owners, Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas, filed the suit on June 18 in the Northern District of California. They allege violations of the state’s False Advertising Law under Business and Professions Code § 17500.6, as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, on behalf of a proposed class of California buyers.
Every purchase cited in the complaint falls after the statute’s effective date. Garcia bought NBA 2K25 for EUR 18 on March 27, 2025, followed by NBA 2K26 and Madden NFL 26 for EUR 57 and EUR 60, respectively, on August 11, 2025. The plaintiffs argue these transactions grant “only a limited, revocable license,” while the PlayStation Store’s wording implies ownership. They say they sent two CLRA demand letters, on April 21, 2026, and May 11, 2026, that Sony did not answer.
Why Arbitration May Decide the Case
Section 14 of the PlayStation Terms of Service requires U.S. users to settle disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions, unless a user mails a written opt-out to Sony’s legal department in San Mateo within 30 days of accepting the terms. Sony’s motion included three versions of those terms, dated August 2023, March 2025, and April 2026, plus the Software Product License Agreement, covering the period when proposed class members agreed to them. The plaintiffs voluntarily dropped co-defendant Sony Corporation of America on August 20, one day before the motion, leaving Sony Interactive Entertainment as the only defendant.
The legal basis for corporations blocking customers from court rests on the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” and the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that the Act overrides state rules treating class action waivers as unenforceable. Sony added its arbitration clause to the PlayStation Network terms in September 2011, shortly after that decision.
The clause
Source
Image: tomshardware.com
