CA law means stores can't say you're buying a game if you're merely licensing it
California's AB 2426 law, effective January 1, 2025, mandates digital storefronts to clarify that purchases are licenses, enhancing transparency and consumer rights in the digital goods market.
Read original article
A new California law, AB 2426, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, aims to enhance transparency in the digital goods market, particularly concerning video games, movies, and e-books. The law, effective January 1, 2025, mandates that digital storefronts must clarify that consumers are purchasing licenses rather than owning the digital goods outright. This legislation was introduced following incidents like Ubisoft's revocation of licenses for older games, which highlighted the lack of consumer awareness regarding digital ownership. Under the new law, companies such as Microsoft, Sony, and Valve must avoid using terms like "buy" or "purchase" unless they explicitly state that the transaction involves a license. The law does not apply to subscription services or free downloads. Violations will result in fines. Experts believe this law is a significant step toward protecting consumer rights in the digital marketplace, as it addresses the potential for digital goods to become inaccessible without notice. The ongoing shift from physical to digital media raises concerns about ownership and preservation, as consumers may lose access to their purchases if companies decide to delist or revoke licenses.
- California's AB 2426 law enhances transparency in digital goods transactions.
- The law requires clear communication that purchases are licenses, not ownership.
- It applies to major digital storefronts like Microsoft Store and Steam.
- Violations of the law will incur fines for companies.
- The legislation addresses consumer rights and digital ownership issues.
Related
California passes bill requiring easier data sharing opt outs
California has passed a bill to enhance consumer privacy by simplifying opt-out processes for data sharing, introducing an "opt-out preference signal" to facilitate easier privacy management for users.
New California law requires one-click subscription cancellations
California's Assembly Bill 2863 mandates one-click cancellation for automatic subscription renewals, effective January 1, 2025, simplifying the process for consumers and enhancing protection against complicated cancellation methods.
New California law will force companies to admit you don't own digital content
California's AB 2426 law, effective in 2025, clarifies that digital content purchases are licenses, not ownership, aiming to prevent misleading language in transactions and enhance consumer protections.
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.
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.
19 commentsLike, if we look back at this, surely there were people saying, "Hey, things have changed. You don't actually 'own' the thing you think you're buying anymore. This could come back to bite you," but on the whole, not nearly enough people cared for it to shape the market.
There is sure to be another thing like this, some other movement where yet another owner of something finds a way to sell you access to it in a way that makes you think it's "yours," but actually all you have is permission to use it as long as they remain happy with you and happy to continue allowing you access. How do we make sure people know and care next time?
And what about the fact that, on the whole, most people are apparently fine with having access to things rather than ownership of them? How do you make the distinction when it matters, but allow both types of transactions? (For example, I'm glad I don't have to buy, and then sell, even a single room in a house to stay in when I'm traveling; paying to use it for a limited period is preferable to me in that situation.)
We know putting the information in the terms of use won't help, but what would?
I think it's pretty sensible. For any digital good (including books and movies etc., not just games), if you're supposedly buying the thing, it can't be given to you in a form in which your ownership can be unilaterally revoked later.
Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593 - Sept 2024 (100 comments)
You might be licensed to operate the vehicle but restricted in specific interactions with it.
It seems the industry is moving in this direction, which is concerning due to the cost structure. It shifts control away from consumers and toward the IP owners of these products.
Tesla may be a notable example, where you're unable to make modifications or repairs to the car without a proper license.
I mean, I guess you could theoretically buy a physical medium that contains the data for a game, explicitly without a license to use the data in any way. But at the end of the day, you will always be licensing it, until the government abolishes the artificial enforced monopoly called copyright.
For instance, I bought Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. That game is locked in. No fixes, no additions, no nothing. What is on the cart is what you get. Nintendo has no more obligation to me and I have no more obligation to them.
But people expect updates and changes. Let's not talk about "incomplete games being finished through updates", games get updated all the time now. Even for physical copies. Games now often install on the hardware and check for updates on first run.
So if we go to "buy", if you get a broken game, that's on you. Don't buy from them anymore. You don't get to hound the developers to "fix" the game. You paid for the thing, they gave you the thing. If you want a refund, return the thing.
I think we still haven't quite figured out how to work with ephemeral goods like software. It's kind of like a performance, kind of like a physical item, etc. It requires far more effort to generate than it does to copy. And buyers want to buy on the value of the copying, but sellers want to sell on the value of generation.
Related
California passes bill requiring easier data sharing opt outs
California has passed a bill to enhance consumer privacy by simplifying opt-out processes for data sharing, introducing an "opt-out preference signal" to facilitate easier privacy management for users.
New California law requires one-click subscription cancellations
California's Assembly Bill 2863 mandates one-click cancellation for automatic subscription renewals, effective January 1, 2025, simplifying the process for consumers and enhancing protection against complicated cancellation methods.
New California law will force companies to admit you don't own digital content
California's AB 2426 law, effective in 2025, clarifies that digital content purchases are licenses, not ownership, aiming to prevent misleading language in transactions and enhance consumer protections.
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.
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.