Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales
California’s new AB 2426 law targets “deceptive” sales of digital goods by restricting the use of terms like “buy” and “purchase” when users are really only getting revocable licenses or time-limited access. Commenters welcome the move as a small but important shift toward clearer consumer rights in games and other media, tying it to broader campaigns like Stop Killing Games that push for true ownership and offline-accessible copies. Others are skeptical it will change much in practice, predicting new labels like “Get access” and extra checkboxes that comply with the letter of the law while preserving existing business models.
Stop Killing Games (SKG) and related activism
- SKG campaigners see the California law as a big shift in the “Overton window” on digital ownership, making stronger reforms easier to argue for.
- They credit rising attention, scandals like Ubisoft’s The Crew shutdown, and a large EU petition as pressure that’s already pushing companies (e.g., bringing back older games, promising offline modes).
- SKG frames the core issue as clawing back ownership rights for all digital tech, not just games.
What the California law appears to do
- Law targets deceptive use of terms like “buy” or “purchase” for digital goods where access can be revoked.
- One reading: “buy” is forbidden unless the seller gets a separate, explicit acknowledgment that it’s a revocable license.
- Another reading: this risks becoming a trivial checkbox plus EULA link, which most users will ignore.
UI wording and practical effects
- Many expect industry to switch to terms like “Get”, “Unlock”, “Get access”, “Add to cart” or “Checkout”.
- Some argue these still imply real ownership; others think even a wording shift is a win because it makes the non‑ownership clearer and may deter some purchases.
Ownership vs licensing
- Strong sentiment that calling revocable, DRM‑tied access “buying” is inherently fraudulent.
- Debate over whether buying should imply perpetual access, resale rights, and offline usability.
- Some insist “you bought a license” is accurate; others say platforms almost never present it that way at point of sale.
Impact on developers and business models
- One side: requirements are mainly a “tech problem” solvable via offline modes, self‑hostable servers, or alternative tooling; mostly large companies are affected.
- Critics: this underplays licensing constraints (e.g., third‑party libraries, licensed music) and could burden smaller studios or force certain tech stacks out.
Parallels to cookie banners and Prop 65
- Skeptics fear this will become another perfunctory consent ritual—like cookie popups or ubiquitous cancer warnings—without real behavior change.
- Supporters counter that even a more honest label (“Get access”) is a meaningful incremental step.
DRM, offline access, and platforms
- Law’s exception for permanent, offline‑usable downloads is praised; GOG‑style DRM‑free models are seen as compliant.
- Experiences differ between platforms and formats (Steam vs GOG, DRM‑free Kindle titles), raising questions about how they’ll adapt.