What was their rationale for doing nothing?

s1artibartfast · 2026-09-03T22:22:04

I would just like to point out that nobody actually answered this question, just inserted their own imaginary cynical commentary.

In fact, the federal court case over the issue is ongoing.

The case is Mendoza, et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC. and you can follow it if you want. [1]

https://openclassactions.com/lawsuits/consumer-protection/so...

dataflow · 2026-09-04T01:11:14

Thank you!

kevin_thibedeau · 2026-09-03T18:03:48

Sony supports the media industry in CA. It would be a shame if they moved their studios elsewhere...

upboundspiral · 2026-09-04T16:18:41

To clarify:

The attorney general said they wouldn't be pressing charges, and said that private individuals would need to press charges themselves. Source: https://youtu.be/Wst4wPBH-Cg

It seems that now some individuals have pressed charges against Sony.

The problem is that Sony thinks that rule of law is for chumps and has forced arbitration (waiving your right to go to court) unless you opt out by mail or soemthing within 30 days hidden in the modern Iliad terms of service.

So in theory this case could get thrown out due to Sony legally taking away your right to a fair trial.

And if you read the proceedings Sony says that "consumers in the digital age have no expectation of ownership when they buy digital products". Goes to show you the respect some modern companies have for people.

benjiro29 · 2026-09-03T16:40:30

What was their rationale for doing nothing?

Carrot: Free vacations? Merch? Benefits ...

Stick: Scared because taking actions against the Buy (aka you own nothing) is paramount to going in a fight with a entire industry.

b112 · 2026-09-03T17:20:23

Class action civil case should still be doable? And 100k small claims court cases would hurt.

skrellm · 2026-09-03T18:24:55

> Class action civil case should still be doable?

Nope, because there's a stance in EULA's footnote (with extremely small letters) that you give up your rights to class action civil case.

b112 · 2026-09-03T19:14:38

So you've verified this? In this specific case? Or are you just being a wise guy.

Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over. Often, courts don't care about an EULA when wrongful action has been taken.

The jurisdiction matters too, of course.

skrellm · 2026-09-04T13:03:15

> So you've verified this?

Yes, verified. I would not have said it otherwise.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/

> 14.5. Class Action Waiver. > YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE AGREE THAT ARBITRATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION [...]

> Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over.

This specific case BTW: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.47...

I'm no lawyer, but IMHO they probably will reply that Sony has indeed violated CA. AB 2426 (effective since 01-jan-2025) and that Sony illegally tried to restrict customer rights in the first place, as per McGill v. Citibank https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s...

b112 · 2026-09-04T17:21:25

Thanks. I'm in Quebec, and there are very strong protections here, consumer wise.

But it's Napoleonic civil code, so sometimes things don't work out as my common law brain thinks.

(It'll be interesting to read your California link.