September 27th, 2024

Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales

California's new law AB 2426 protects consumers from deceptive sales of digital goods by requiring clear disclosure of licensing terms, enhancing transparency and consumer rights in digital transactions.

Read original articleLink Icon
Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales

California has enacted a new law, AB 2426, aimed at protecting consumers from deceptive sales practices related to digital goods, such as video games, movies, and books. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the law prohibits sellers from advertising digital goods in a way that implies consumers are purchasing ownership when they are actually receiving a temporary license. Sellers must now clearly indicate when a digital good is only available through a license and disclose that access may be revoked if the seller loses licensing rights. This law was prompted by incidents involving companies like Ubisoft and Sony, which faced backlash for revoking access to purchased content. The legislation emphasizes the need for transparency in digital transactions, ensuring that consumers are aware of the nature of their purchases. Exceptions exist for goods that are clearly labeled as licenses and for free or subscription-based services. The law is seen as a significant step toward enhancing consumer rights in the digital marketplace, addressing concerns that have been recognized since at least 2016.

- California is the first state to ban deceptive sales of digital goods.

- The law requires clear disclosure of licensing terms for digital purchases.

- Incidents involving Ubisoft and Sony highlighted the need for consumer protection.

- Exceptions are made for clearly labeled licenses and free goods.

- The law aims to enhance consumer confidence in digital transactions.

Link Icon 15 comments
By @kstrauser - 7 months
This is excellent news! Remember, if you buy a copy of a good, you’re entitled to enjoy it as long as you wish to. If the seller steals it back from you, it’s ethical to acquire a replacement copy.

The law may say differently, but you cannot convince me that I don’t own something I bought through a “buy” button. I’ve never seen a book or movie or game or album where the button says “License” instead of “Buy”.

By @Daiz - 7 months
Extremely welcome legislation, especially since it has an exception for "permanent download that can be accessed offline", ie. DRM-free downloads. It's about time someone actually calls out Big Media on their deceptive practices. As I've been saying for years, it's not "buying" with DRM-encumbered media, merely "renting for an undefined time period".

In fact, it'd be even nicer if the legislation explicitly required rental terminology to be used for anything DRM-encumbered, but well, even as-is, this is an extremely welcome development and I hope legislators worldwide are taking note and plan to follow suit as soon as possible. This kind of victory for digital consumer rights has been long overdue!

By @Sniffnoy - 7 months
Hm, wonder if the Stop Killing Games campaign (https://www.stopkillinggames.com/) will be able to make use of this, like they're trying to make use of consumer protection law in France...
By @szastamasta - 7 months
Maybe I have misunderstood the article, but for me it looks like another „cookies” law.

They are not proposing to force media companies to make sure you have access to your media forever. Or force them to give you a downloadable copy when they remove media from store. They’ll just replace „Buy” button with „Get Access” or whatever and add some lawyer mumbo-jumbo above it.

Looks like a smokescreen to me.

By @blackeyeblitzar - 7 months
Ownership always had a meaning. Selling things for purchase and then treating it as a limited license is fraud. Even under existing law. How about we hold all these companies accountable for the rug pull?
By @simoncion - 7 months
If I'm reading the text of the law correctly [0], this does not go nearly far enough.

(b)(2)(A) seems to say that all an entity needs to do to comply with the law is to add a checkbox associated with some text that links to the EULA for the software, and also says "By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read the EULA and know that access to the software will be revoked if you no longer hold a right to the software".

Most folks are never going to read the EULA, and no reasonable person would expect that a button that says "BUY" would seal a deal that permits the "seller" to unilaterally revoke the customer's right to the "sold" software.

[0] <https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2966792>

By @robertclaus - 7 months
It does feel like a lot of this enforcement will need to be in the spirit of the law and/or general deterrence. I would assume any sufficiently specific law in this space would be fairly easy to find a loophole or workaround for in your UI.
By @m463 - 7 months
I wonder if Steam and GOG will become different.

Also kindle.

"Additionally, it's OK to advertise a digital good if access isn't ever revoked, such as when users purchase a permanent download that can be accessed offline, regardless of a seller's rights to license the content."

I've played steam games offline, only to have something expire at some point, preventing the games from launching.

No such issue with GOG.

This might even differentiate individual games.

For kindle, some books (tor?) have a paragraph "this bookis distributed without digital rights management"

Could a download of this book differentiate buy vs license?

By @Me000 - 7 months
This is amazing, thank god people are fighting for my rights.
By @phendrenad2 - 7 months
I think eventually the games industry will settle on something like music royalties. Game companies will get some amount of money per-play.
By @pjmlp - 7 months
Great, hope this extends elsewhere.
By @riiii - 7 months
Imagine writing so awful and unethical software that it triggers law to be created to ban it.
By @givemeethekeys - 7 months
Do they charge / pay sales tax on in-game purchases?
By @WhereIsTheTruth - 7 months
When you see FUD, you see FUD, but you chose to ignore it, i can't be the only one to see it, it's in plain text, in the title
By @99112000 - 7 months
Did they have to add a label that the goods may give them cancer?