Sony Interactive Entertainment is asking a federal judge to keep a proposed California class action over PlayStation Store digital-game purchases out of court, according to Tom’s Hardware. The outlet reports that Sony filed an August 21 motion seeking to move the dispute into individual arbitration under the PlayStation Terms of Service. The suit was filed on June 18 and challenges how Sony labels digital transactions on the PlayStation Store. Tom’s Hardware reports that the complaint targets buttons and checkout language such as “Buy Now” and “Confirm Purchase,” arguing that consumers are not clearly told they are receiving a revocable license rather than ownership of a digital game. Engadget reports the same central allegation: the plaintiffs say Sony does not clearly and conspicuously disclose at the point of sale that digital PlayStation transactions do not convey ownership. The plaintiffs argue that the relevant limitations are instead placed in disclaimers or separate agreements that buyers are not required to acknowledge before completing a purchase. The legal hook is California’s AB 2426, according to Tom’s Hardware. The law took effect on January 1, 2025, and applies to digital goods, including games. Tom’s Hardware reports that it requires companies to disclose when consumers are obtaining a revocable license and restricts the use of terms such as “buy” or “purchase” when the transaction is for licensed access rather than ownership. Sony’s response contests the premise that consumers were misled. Engadget reports that Sony pointed to Section 1 of its Software Product License Agreement, which says software is licensed rather than sold, and argued that it is not plausible that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ownership of a digital game. Sony also argued, according to Engadget, that digital storefront purchases differ from physical ownership because multiple customers can obtain access to the same game from the store. Tom’s Hardware reports that Sony is also leaning on the dispute-resolution machinery in its own PlayStation Terms of Service. Section 14, as described by the outlet, requires U.S. users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waives class actions unless a user mails an opt-out notice to Sony’s legal department within 30 days of accepting the terms. That creates a procedural fight before the underlying consumer-law question is tested. The plaintiffs argue Sony’s checkout disclosures are not clear enough under California law; Sony, according to Tom’s Hardware, is invoking the broader account terms that contain the arbitration clause. If the judge agrees with Sony on arbitration, the proposed class action may not proceed in court as a class case. Tom’s Hardware identifies the four PlayStation owners as Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and Josh Salinas, and says they brought claims under California’s Business and Professions Code 17500.6, the state False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The outlet also reports that Sony Corporation of America was voluntarily dismissed on August 20, leaving Sony Interactive Entertainment as the remaining defendant. Who benefits: Sony benefits if the court enforces individual arbitration, because that would narrow the case’s procedural path. Digital storefront operators also have a clear reason to watch the ruling because the dispute centers on checkout language and license disclosures. Who's exposed: California consumers in the proposed class are exposed to losing the class-action route if Sony’s arbitration argument succeeds. Companies selling licensed digital goods are exposed if their point-of-sale wording does not satisfy AB 2426’s disclosure requirements.