Sony says gamers don't own their digital purchases, but 44 examples of its own wording suggest otherwise

[midian182]

A hot potato: Sony has argued in its ownership lawsuit that people don't actually own their digital purchases. But that seems to contradict the 44 instances documented by the Consumer Rights Wiki, all of which show the gaming giant clearly stating that people do in fact "own" their games.

The collection spans PlayStation support pages, store listings, and official blog posts, with live links, archived snapshots, and highlighted screenshots showing exactly where Sony uses ownership language.

The project comes from the community around the Consumer Rights Wiki, founded by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann. Its collection covers support articles, promotional pages, store listings, and official blog posts, all showing that language suggesting ownership extends well beyond the checkout button.

One particularly clear example appears in Sony's instructions for upgrading PS4 games to their PS5 versions. The page explicitly refers to an eligible "digital PS4 game you already own." That leaves little room to suggest the wording applies exclusively to physical discs.

There's also Sony's explanation of its PlayStation Store ratings system. In an August 2025 blog post, the company said players "must own the game before submitting a rating." It appears that ownership is a perfectly useful concept when explaining who gets to leave feedback.

The lawsuit was filed in June by four California customers who allege Sony's checkout does not adequately disclose that their purchases grant revocable licenses. They say the licensing notice is small and insufficiently prominent, while buttons such as "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase" suggest ownership.

California's AB 2426, which took effect in January 2025, restricts that language unless sellers obtain the required acknowledgment or provide a clear, conspicuous licensing disclosure. The dispute concerns what customers are told when paying for games, rather than whether buying a copy transfers the publisher's intellectual property.

Sony argues its licensing terms make the arrangement clear and that "reasonable consumers would not be misled." But the wiki's examples certainly illustrate why people would think they do own these items.

Other storefronts have been more explicit about ownership. Steam added a shopping-cart notice in October 2024 explaining that digital purchases grant licenses. Ubisoft used a similar ownership defense after The Crew's shutdown left paying customers unable to play.

For now, Sony is seeking individual arbitration, citing terms it says all four plaintiffs accepted without opting out. It has alternatively requested dismissal, with a hearing scheduled for October 1. Whether the wiki's collection influences proceedings remains to be seen, but it certainly adds to the growing PR nightmare Sony has become embroiled in.

Permalink to story:

Sony says gamers don't own their digital purchases, but 44 examples of its own wording suggest otherwise

 

[yRaz]

Unless you're in one of several countries where you do like in all places, China and Brazil. Not exactly small markets....

While the US will likely be the last holdold, the idea that you own your digital purchases is a thing in China and Brazil(those damn commies!) are already on board with digital ownership and transferable licenses and the idea is spreading in the EU with South America.

This probably could have gone on forever the way it was if Sony didn't get up on their soap box and start screaming about how we own nothing and it remained a minor annoyance that consumers tolerated. They really just put the gas on "these consumers just need to shut and start liking the fact they don't own games". Pair that with LG recently saying they own the glass in your TV and have a right to know what it's doing and we're going to have a lot of interesting stories to follow the next few months.

 

[hahahanoobs]

A company lied to their customers.
Shocker.

 

[dangh]

At least steam is clear, you by default do not buy games there, just getting a revocable license

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

I checked Sony's TOS and it specifically maps the terms being quoted to not being sellable. It seems pretty clear to me: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/#content-license-and-restrictions

Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.

For digital products, this is the norm anyways unless there is a digital interface to also sell items you're buying. As a customer, I never expect to be able to sell or trade digitally purchased content. That's not how it works on any app store, in any game (unless there is a trade interface), subscriptions, and much more. I don't know of any example; do you?

If you want resellable physical games, then just don't purchase a Playstation. If competitors find there's a benefit from offering physical game purchases, they will keep them. But I don't expect trying to gaslight the legal system into believing Sony's digital purchases should've always been resellable by law is going to work. That would create a huge liability to any company operating within that jurisdiction and would be disastrous.

 

[Nobina]

Sony or any other company shouldn't have a say in this at all. They haven't invented digital products. If there isn't, there should be a law which says that whatever you buy digitally, you own, as that only makes sense.

 

[NumberNine]

Computers are somehow both my greatest source of joy and the epitome of material foolishness. This is why I accept that I'm both skilled and stupid.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Unless you're in one of several countries where you do like in all places, China and Brazil. Not exactly small markets....

While the US will likely be the last holdold, the idea that you own your digital purchases is a thing in China and Brazil(those damn commies!) are already on board with digital ownership and transferable licenses and the idea is spreading in the EU with South America.

This probably could have gone on forever the way it was if Sony didn't get up on their soap box and start screaming about how we own nothing and it remained a minor annoyance that consumers tolerated. They really just put the gas on "these consumers just need to shut and start liking the fact they don't own games". Pair that with LG recently saying they own the glass in your TV and have a right to know what it's doing and we're going to have a lot of interesting stories to follow the next few months.

Citation needed for actual digital resales.

Speaking of China, property rights are just like digital rights because the government owns all property in the country. So you end up with this curious case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prope...s_and_procedures_to_expropriate_real_property
- Buying property?
- Buying a license to use a property for 30-70 years?
- Removing the license from your ownership?

Sony or any other company shouldn't have a say in this at all. They haven't invented digital products. If there isn't, there should be a law which says that whatever you buy digitally, you own, as that only makes sense.

If a jurisdiction passes a law, then companies doing business there would have to comply if they want to keep doing business there. That said, retroactive laws are extremely limited in the US so this would probably only apply to newly sold digital products.

 

[GABulldog]

The WEF said it best, you will own nothing and be happy.

 

[Infernus]

What we need when we buy anything digital is a irrevocable license. So when we buy a game, movie etc. it can be downloaded to our drive. It may be pulled from the store and we can't buy it again but it won't matter because we have it. If nothing changes I will just keep on torrenting like I been doing for over 20 yrs.

 

[Infernus]

The WEF said it best, you will own nothing and be happy.

The WEF said it best, you will own nothing and be happy.

Or I will torrent what I want and own it all and it will not be taken away, and there isn't a damn thing Sony or any company can do to stop torrents.

 

[The Talking Tech]

I checked Sony's TOS and it specifically maps the terms being quoted to not being sellable. It seems pretty clear to me: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/#content-license-and-restrictions

For digital products, this is the norm anyways unless there is a digital interface to also sell items you're buying. As a customer, I never expect to be able to sell or trade digitally purchased content. That's not how it works on any app store, in any game (unless there is a trade interface), subscriptions, and much more. I don't know of any example; do you?

If you want resellable physical games, then just don't purchase a Playstation. If competitors find there's a benefit from offering physical game purchases, they will keep them. But I don't expect trying to gaslight the legal system into believing Sony's digital purchases should've always been resellable by law is going to work. That would create a huge liability to any company operating within that jurisdiction and would be disastrous.

So Sony should remove wording such as "Buy" and "Purchase" since they are not selling you anything.

The meaning of "Buying" is perpetual ownership until given away.

 

[yRaz]

Citation needed for actual digital resales.

Speaking of China, property rights are just like digital rights because the government owns all property in the country. So you end up with this curious case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prope...s_and_procedures_to_expropriate_real_property
- Buying property?
- Buying a license to use a property for 30-70 years?
- Removing the license from your ownership?

If a jurisdiction passes a law, then companies doing business there would have to comply if they want to keep doing business there. That said, retroactive laws are extremely limited in the US so this would probably only apply to newly sold digital products.

Chinese courts rule that game accounts and digital purchases can be inherited

Chinese courts have given a mother access to 87 game accounts left behind by her deceased son, a ruling that treats digital game assets as...

vgtimes.com

Brazil Targets Digital Game Ownership After Sony Drops Discs

Brazil is weighing digital game ownership and preservation rules after Sony dropped physical discs, pressuring publishers to give lasting access to paid games.

gaming.lt

Xbox Digital Library Restored by Brazil Court Order [2026]

A Brazilian court ordered Microsoft to restore a banned Xbox digital library in 15 days, raising new questions on digital game ownership.

tech-insider.org

There is a growing movement because of crypto currency of all things, that digital assets are assets. In game items are kind of like NFTs. Can't do much with a digital catboy outfit I bought in a game if I didn't have the game to go with it so it seems like those need to be sorted out.

 

[Arkitekt78]

Let em burn.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Step 1: Search for SONY game torrent
Step 2: Download game using VPN
Step 3: SAVE game to hard drive and never, ever, EVER give SONY a cent

It seems you CAN, for all intents and purposes, have some SONY games forever with a non-revocable license. Huh.

Arr.

 

[AnilD]

If pressing Buy gives me a revocable license, call the button License.
Companies know perfectly well why they don’t do that.

So Sony has two definitions of ownership: the one marketing uses when it wants your money, and the one the lawyers use after they already have it.

 

[Badvok]

Love coming here to see all the *****ic comments on this issue.

My (probably useless) input:

- to buy: to get something by paying money for it.

The verb itself doesn't define what that something is.

 

[OortCloud]

I wonder if there's a point at which Sony realises just how badly a set of dumb bean counters in the organisation have tarnished the brand in the last 6 months. People like Mark Cerney who have worked so hard to make Sony the success they are must be wondering what the hell the m0rons in control are up to. How much would it really have cost them to keep old games in the catalogue? They make money on the hardware for the PS5 pro stand-alone disk drive so that's a no brainer. Just produce a stand-alone drive for the PS6 and allow publishers to release games physically at their own cost and they would be fine now, nobody would be complaining.

 

[Liranan]

Citation needed for actual digital resales.

Speaking of China, property rights are just like digital rights because the government owns all property in the country. So you end up with this curious case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prope...s_and_procedures_to_expropriate_real_property
- Buying property?
- Buying a license to use a property for 30-70 years?
- Removing the license from your ownership?

If a jurisdiction passes a law, then companies doing business there would have to comply if they want to keep doing business there. That said, retroactive laws are extremely limited in the US so this would probably only apply to newly sold digital products.

Do tell why the government gives the owners of those properties you 'rent' in China demolition compensation once those properties are demolished. China is so evil that they compensate those people, CAN YOU IMAGINE THE EVIL!!

Sorry, I don't want to ruin your propaganda, please continue.

 

[Liranan]

Unless you're in one of several countries where you do like in all places, China and Brazil. Not exactly small markets....

While the US will likely be the last holdold, the idea that you own your digital purchases is a thing in China and Brazil(those damn commies!) are already on board with digital ownership and transferable licenses and the idea is spreading in the EU with South America.

This probably could have gone on forever the way it was if Sony didn't get up on their soap box and start screaming about how we own nothing and it remained a minor annoyance that consumers tolerated. They really just put the gas on "these consumers just need to shut and start liking the fact they don't own games". Pair that with LG recently saying they own the glass in your TV and have a right to know what it's doing and we're going to have a lot of interesting stories to follow the next few months.

These lying pirates can go to hell with the theft of our games. Their EULA and TOS do not affect me as I own them and they cannot be removed from my library.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Do tell why the government gives the owners of those properties you 'rent' in China demolition compensation once those properties are demolished. China is so evil that they compensate those people, CAN YOU IMAGINE THE EVIL!!

Sorry, I don't want to ruin your propaganda, please continue.

It's not propaganda, because there is still a compromise. I guess the fair comparison between China and Playstation then becomes:
- China lets you sell your the license you bought to use land, but they may still forcibly reclaim that usage license and give you compensation for the actual value.
- Playstation will not arbitrarily revoke the digital license you bought to play the game (even with compensation), but you cannot sell it to others.

So what would you prefer, Sony giving you a store credit for arbitrarily removing games from your account even if you just bought it from someone else (relevant to China's property laws), or Sony not allowing you to sell a video game you bought from them but they will always leave it in your library? I'd argue they're both a compromise and that property rights in China are no better than that of a digital storefront.

 

[Honest Abe]

I checked Sony's TOS and it specifically maps the terms being quoted to not being sellable. It seems pretty clear to me: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/#content-license-and-restrictions

For digital products, this is the norm anyways unless there is a digital interface to also sell items you're buying. As a customer, I never expect to be able to sell or trade digitally purchased content. That's not how it works on any app store, in any game (unless there is a trade interface), subscriptions, and much more. I don't know of any example; do you?

If you want resellable physical games, then just don't purchase a Playstation. If competitors find there's a benefit from offering physical game purchases, they will keep them. But I don't expect trying to gaslight the legal system into believing Sony's digital purchases should've always been resellable by law is going to work. That would create a huge liability to any company operating within that jurisdiction and would be disastrous.

To me, it's not about being able to resell the digital game purchases. It's about whether you'll always have access to them in the future, or if they will someday be removed from the online library and you won't be able to download it and play it anymore past a certain date.

Much the way Netflix removes older content after a while. I personally feel that they should always remain available after a purchase, and never removed, because I paid for these games. If they plan on removing them in 10 or 20 years, I think they should at least tell us the removal date up front. That's just me though.

 

[Ed Smith]

I'll keep my ps2 and all of the discs that I can hold in my own 2 hands that don't require an Internet connection to play. As should everyone else.