Consumer Rights
Ongoing coverage on Consumer Rights.
Latest coverage
Fed up with Sony, PlayStation fans compile a list of all the times the company said "you own" your games and…
PlayStation fans have compiled a list of Sony's past statements and store verbiage that suggest users "own" their digital games, in light of a class action lawsuit challenging these terms. The lawsuit hinges on a California law requiring clear communication about licensing versus ownership, with Sony arguing consumers are not misled by its terms. The article highlights numerous examples from the PlayStation Store and help pages that imply ownership, despite Sony's terms of service stating otherwise.
After Sony tells fans they don't own digital games, one Consumer Rights group is tracking all the times PlayStation said the opposite
A consumer rights group is tracking over 30 instances where Sony has implied customers own digital games, contradicting their recent legal argument that 'reasonable consumers' know they don't truly own them. A class action lawsuit alleges Sony's PlayStation Store is unclear about digital licenses being revocable, while Sony claims their disclosures are sufficient.
Even during a RAMpocalypse, Sony and Microsoft come across as less consumer-friendly than some PC brands with their refusal to give US tariff refunds back to consumers
Sony and Microsoft are facing lawsuits for allegedly not passing on US tariff refunds to consumers, despite some PC brands like Arctic and Panic doing so. Both console manufacturers have filed motions to dismiss the suits, arguing that consumers did not suffer a legally cognizable injury. This stance contrasts with smaller companies that have proactively refunded customers, leading to criticism of Sony and Microsoft's consumer-friendliness.
Microsoft invents new level of 'own nothing and like it': 5 to 15 hours of playtime a month for Xbox cloud…
Microsoft is introducing monthly playtime limits for Xbox Cloud Gaming, ranging from 5 to 15 hours depending on the Xbox Game Pass tier. Players will be able to purchase additional hours, a move the company attributes to rising operational costs. This change is expected to impact a small percentage of users but has drawn criticism for its optics and potential erosion of consumer rights.
Both Microsoft and Sony say they're under no obligation to pass tariff refunds on to customers
Microsoft and Sony have stated they are not obligated to pass tariff refunds onto consumers, despite lawsuits arguing otherwise. Both companies claim customers paid the advertised price and are not owed any difference, even if tariffs were later deemed unconstitutional. While most major players are taking this stance, companies like Arctic and Panic are offering refunds or price rollbacks to customers.
Sony and Microsoft do their best Nintendo impression, say customers aren't entitled to tariff refunds because they chose to pay inflated prices and got "exactly" what they "paid for"
Sony and Microsoft are following Nintendo's lead by refusing to pass tariff refunds onto consumers for products like the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X. The companies argue that customers received exactly what they paid for at the advertised price, and that consumers were free to not purchase the goods if they disagreed with the cost.
Following Nintendo's example, Sony and Microsoft argue they have no obligation to pass tariff refunds onto customers
Sony and Microsoft are arguing in separate lawsuits that they are not legally obligated to pass tariff refunds onto consumers who purchased their consoles at inflated prices. Both companies, along with Nintendo, are facing legal challenges from customers seeking compensation after US-imposed tariffs were ruled illegal and companies became eligible for refunds. While the platform holders maintain consumers paid fair market price, some smaller companies like Panic and Arctic have opted to refund customers.
PlayStation argues "reasonable consumers" already know they don't actually own their digital games
Sony's legal team is arguing that consumers understand they do not truly own digital games, even if they have paid for them. This defense comes amid a class-action lawsuit alleging that PlayStation Store disclosures are insufficient regarding digital ownership rights, particularly in light of a California law requiring clearer communication about perpetual access not being guaranteed.
'Reasonable' consumers know they don't own digital downloads, Sony says
Sony has stated that 'reasonable' consumers understand they do not own digital game downloads, in response to a lawsuit alleging the company violates California law. This statement addresses the ongoing legal debate surrounding digital ownership rights.
Sony’s Digital Game Ownership Argument Is Another Attack On Consumer Rights
Sony is arguing in a class-action lawsuit that it does not mislead consumers about purchasing digital game licenses instead of actual ownership. The company claims reasonable consumers understand these are licenses, not full ownership, and points to its terms of service disclaimers. This stance is concerning for the future of gaming, especially as physical media options diminish.
Sony's mad legal argument for digital PS5 games says there's only ever one copy
Sony is making a legal argument that digital game purchases are licenses, not sales, and that only one person can ever own a digital copy of a game. This stance is being taken in court following a lawsuit over alleged violations of consumer rights laws regarding digital storefront clarity. The company's reasoning suggests that if a consumer truly owned a digital game, no one else could play it, a logic that contradicts their own reported digital sales figures.
Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person…
Sony's lawyers are arguing in a legal filing that consumers do not actually own their digital games and are unlikely to believe they do. This argument is part of their defense against a class-action lawsuit alleging the company violates consumer protection laws by not clearly disclosing that purchases are licenses, not ownership.
Micron, the trillion-dollar memory company, refused to replace a crucial drive for current market value until Reddit got…
A PC gamer successfully pressured Crucial into replacing a failed 4TB external drive after the company initially offered only a refund for the original purchase price. The customer escalated the issue to Reddit, citing market price increases and consumer protection laws, leading Crucial to provide a 1-to-1 replacement due to limited inventory.
CyberLeek, Explained: Inside the GTA 6 Leaks, the Manifesto and the Memecoin Votes
An individual or group known as CyberLeek has been publishing alleged unfinished footage and details from Grand Theft Auto VI, accompanied by a manifesto advocating for consumer rights regarding digital preorders and game preservation. The group has also launched a memecoin, $CYBERLEEK, which is used for community voting on which leaked content to release next. While Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive have taken action to remove the leaked material, the origin and authenticity of the leaks remain unverified, with possibilities of AI generation or playable build access being discussed.
Sony trolls PlayStation boycotters with reminder they don't own digital games
Sony Interactive Entertainment has reminded PlayStation users that digital games are licensed, not owned, amidst backlash over the discontinuation of physical game discs. This reminder, sent via email, emphasizes the limited rights granted to players for digital purchases, coinciding with a planned gamer boycott and Sony's continued pursuit of live service games.
Who is Cyberleek? What we know about the GTA 6 leaker
An individual or group known as "Cyberleek" has leaked multiple gameplay clips of Grand Theft Auto 6, featuring its male protagonist Jason and various in-game activities. The leaker has also published a manifesto outlining common consumer rights complaints against publishers and is promoting a cryptocurrency token, $Cyberleek, with the funds allegedly for a "secret project." Evidence suggests the leaker may be German or Swiss, with potential ties to cybersecurity forums dating back to 2018.
A playable build of GTA 6 appears to have leaked, as Rockstar and Take-Two scramble to take down videos
A hacker group known as Cyberleek has allegedly leaked a playable build of Grand Theft Auto 6, releasing videos that appear to show gameplay footage and protagonist actions. Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive are reportedly working to remove the leaked content, which follows a previous leak of game footage in 2022. The hackers claim to be consumer rights activists protesting against practices like digital preorders and always-online game shutdowns.
GTA 6 Leakers Say They Acted For Gamers’ Rights, While Pushing A Memecoin
A consumer rights group, Stop Killing Games, has spoken out against the recent Grand Theft Auto 6 leaks, urging the public not to support the hackers who claim to have leaked footage. The hackers reportedly stated their actions were a protest against games being released without proper physical editions, while also promoting memecoins. Take-Two Interactive has issued DMCA takedown notices for the leaked content.
Stop Killing Games urges people not to support GTA 6 leakers, who declared "gamers' rights" their motive for action
Consumer rights group Stop Killing Games has publicly condemned the individuals responsible for leaking Grand Theft Auto 6 gameplay footage, urging the public not to support them. The group, known for campaigning against the termination of online games, stated that using illegal means to make a point is unacceptable and harms developers. The leakers reportedly claimed 'gamers' rights' as their motive and attempted to promote a memecoin with the leaked content.
Stop Killing Games might never win according to expert: "Are consumer rights being violated? Well, they already…
An expert from Flux Digital Policy suggests the Stop Killing Games movement may not achieve its goals due to legal and industry standards. Celia Pontin argues that existing terms of service already govern situations like the shutdown of The Crew, and that current legislation makes it difficult to force publishers to maintain access to games indefinitely. While acknowledging the passion behind the movement, she highlights a mismatch between public desires and legal/technological realities.
