September 26th, 2024

California new law forces digital stores to admit you're just licensing content

California's AB 2426 law mandates digital storefronts to clarify that purchases are licenses, not ownership, prohibiting misleading terms and addressing consumer concerns over access to digital content.

Read original articleLink Icon
California new law forces digital stores to admit you're just licensing content

California Governor Gavin Newsom has enacted a new law, AB 2426, aimed at addressing consumer confusion regarding digital media purchases. This legislation mandates that digital storefronts clarify to customers that they are only licensing content, rather than owning it outright. Starting next year, terms like "buy" or "purchase" will be prohibited unless accompanied by a disclosure that the customer is receiving a revocable license, along with a list of any restrictions. This law responds to incidents where companies like Ubisoft and Sony have removed access to purchased digital content, highlighting the need for consumer protections as the market shifts away from physical media. California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin emphasized the importance of this law in combating deceptive advertising practices that mislead consumers about their rights regarding digital purchases. While the law will not prevent companies from revoking access to digital content, it aims to increase consumer awareness of the nature of digital transactions.

- California's AB 2426 law requires digital stores to disclose that purchases are licenses, not ownership.

- The law prohibits the use of terms like "buy" or "purchase" without proper disclosures.

- It addresses consumer concerns following incidents of companies removing access to purchased digital content.

- The legislation aims to combat deceptive advertising practices in the digital media market.

- The law will not apply to stores offering permanent offline downloads.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @hex4def6 - 7 months
This changes nothing, other than making companies replace all instances of "buy" with "add to account".

What I'm more interested in are laws against "changing the experience". You force a mandatory update that significantly changes the product in a way that I don't like (removing features or cramming ads into a device I paid for), I should have the option to revert to the original as-bought configuration, or get a complete refund.

By @486sx33 - 7 months
“Renting” the content is a better description. Hopefully one day the pricing reflects that.
By @nioj - 7 months
Related discussions with more comments:

* Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales (arstechnica.com) 110 comments, Sept 2024 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593

* CA law means stores can’t say you’re buying a game when you’re merely licensing it (polygon.com) 122 comments, Sept 2024| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41671838

By @blackeyeblitzar - 7 months
How about all sales that involved “ownership” be forced to function as actual ownership, retroactively?
By @olliej - 7 months
I would rather they require the stores to sell the software not just change the wording for the existing BS.

Changing the wording to “license” just encourages “seasonal” licenses and no single payment option.

By @whycome - 7 months
The article refers to "physical media" as though that was previously representative of actual ownership. Adobe "sold" versions of its creative suite that are no longer installable even if you have the physical media: Because they "had to shut down the activation servers". This practice should be part of that legislation - retroactively even.

Owners of a digitally disabled version should automatically get access to whatever the current version is. If Adobe isn't okay with that, I'm sure they can find a way to run that obviously heavily burdened server to activate what must be millions of calls. /s