GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

You Think You Own Your Digital Games? California Law Says Otherwise

New legislation requires digital storefronts to clarify licensing terms to customers.

62 Comments

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a law, AB 2426, to address concerns over "disappearing" purchases of digital media, including games, movies, music, and ebooks. The law mandates that digital storefronts inform customers they are acquiring a license to use these products rather than indicating actual ownership, as reported by The Verge.

Effective next year, the legislation prohibits digital retailers from using terms like "buy" or "purchase" unless they clearly state that customers do not receive unrestricted access. Retailers must disclose that these licenses can be revoked and provide a list of associated restrictions. Companies that fail to comply may face fines for false advertising.

This law emerges as digital game sales surge and subscription models dominate the industry, prompting questions about ownership. The gaming community is increasingly aware that titles may not be accessible in the future. An episode of GameSpot's Spot On earlier this year discussed a hypothetical scenario in which, wanting to revisit a game like Alan Wake 2 in 2045, players could find it unavailable due to the shift away from physical sales.

The legislation responds to practices by major companies like PlayStation and Ubisoft. Earlier this year, Ubisoft removed The Crew from player accounts after shutting down its servers, while last year, Sony indicated it would remove purchased content from users' libraries before reversing that decision.

"As retailers continue to pivot away from selling physical media, the need for consumer protections on the purchase of digital media has become increasingly more important," said California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin in a press release. "AB 2426 will ensure the false and deceptive advertising from sellers of digital media incorrectly telling consumers they own their purchases becomes a thing of the past."

While the law raises awareness about the limitations of digital licenses, it does not prevent storefronts from revoking access to purchased content. This legislation reflects ongoing efforts to clarify the nature of digital acquisitions and the evolving landscape of media ownership.

David Wolinsky on Google+

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 62 comments about this story
62 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for dushness
Dushness

1378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

so, no more "buy" language on storefronts

what else will they do instead to obfuscate?

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-680a5fa8cce7a
deactivated-680a5fa8cce7a

612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@dushness: "Rent" is a good word for it lol.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4988

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@dushness: Why not? You are buying a license...permission to download and run the code on your machine...just like you've always been doing. It's still a purchase and you are still receiving property in the form of contractual rights. They'll still use words like "buy" and "purchase", but will just have to clarify that it's not the game per se that you're buying, but rather a license/permission to use it.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-676d0be3d3464
deactivated-676d0be3d3464

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: sale implies transference of ownership. If that transference is liable of being revoked unilaterally, then it is not sale.

3 • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4988

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@rickxy007: LOL...nope. "Sale" merely means that you purchased something. It is on you to understand what you are purchasing. There is no implication that you are buying more than a license when you are literally being offered the chance to purchase a license. Nor is there any implication that what you have purchased is forever just because the words 'buy" "sale" or "purchase" are used. You OWN the rights conveyed by that license. THAT is the "thing" you purchased and OWN via a SALE. If the rights you PURCAHSED and therefore OWN include caveats, limitations, conditions precedent, conditions subsequent, waivers, releases or agreements that the rights maintained by the publisher include the right to end your access to the material you purchased a license to use under certain circumstances, you still PURCHASED something via a SALE that resulted in you OWNING it. What you OWN is simply DEFINED by those limitations, caveats, etc.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-676d0be3d3464
deactivated-676d0be3d3464

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: please. According to Merriam Webster:

the act of selling

specifically : the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price.

Ownership. Property. Transfer.

Not temporarily. That is "rent".

Some people...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4988

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@rickxy007:

Ownership: You own the license.

Property: The license is property, i.e., the licensed rights are property rights.

Transfer: The rights were indeed transferred to you by the party who owns and controls them.

You are desperately straining with complete and utter nonsense.

Whether you have purchased something has absolutely nothing to do with whether what you purchased is temporary, time limited, subject to conditions subsequent, etc.

Some people...have been practicing attorneys for 20+ years...some haven't...and you're way out of your depth, haven't a clue what you're talking about and are on a Dunning-Kruger bender shouting "nuh uh" about basic concepts you inexplicably refuse to understand.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-676d0be3d3464
deactivated-676d0be3d3464

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: sale. No transfer. This is english, not interpretation of the law. Now, if the companies have been mandated to change the language to follow the law, that shows you how good as attorney ssome people are. There's people who have been working at kroger for 20 years and have apparently more knowledge of English than you do. Which is fine. But I am inclined to believe that you haven't quite understood the fundamental issue at play, which involves lack of clarity in what the "sale" transaction implies.

In any case, you are right.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4988

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@rickxy007: It is 100% a transfer. It's just not a transfer of the thing you'd prefer to be the thing being transferred.

The law requires the companies to be more clear about what is being sold, purchased, transferred, etc. if they use the language (per the article: "unless they clearly state that customers do not receive unrestricted access"). They are not wholesale banned from using that verbiage as you seem to think.

All you've really managed to do is perfectly illustrate why it was considered necessary as a consumer protection law: because laymen like yourself have misinformed ideas about what the language really means and the nature of the thing they are buying (i.e., what is being transferred to them)...like you do...the law was written to make sure companies are not using that language unless also being clear about the nature of the transaction and the "thing" being transferred, so they are not taking unfair advantage of that misinformed perception.

Not sure why you're insulting people who work at Kroger's though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-676d0be3d3464
deactivated-676d0be3d3464

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: you're right.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for paperwarior17
paperwarior17

525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As protections go, that's awfully minimal. Many people already know that digital purchases work like that. Companies have their work cut out for them not using the words "buy" or "purchase" but I imagine they'll take that over having their licensing terms restricted.

4 • 
Avatar image for paperwarior17
paperwarior17

525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@paperwarior17: Oh, correcting myself as seen in another comment. They don't have to remove the words "buy" or "purchase" as long as they explain adequately. I wonder what's considered adequate, though? Hopefully more than a paragraph in a EULA you sign when opening an account.

2 • 
Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

74792

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

@paperwarior17: You always were purchasing a license. Nothing has changed in that regards. However, the license you purchased resides on a server for digital content than in person for physical.

2 • 
Avatar image for paperwarior17
paperwarior17

525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Pedro: Legally that was the case, but I don't know of any cases of rights to those things being revoked when they were VHS cassettes, for instance. It wouldn't have been feasible. It should probably be stated that this also applies to current physical media, and while it would be technologically possible to push updates that disable the use of a piece of physical media, I don't expect it to happen.

2 • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

8031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@paperwarior17: Yeah, didn't that one game Rock Band something something. The pub/dev allowed a musical licensing deal to lapse, which means they could no longer use that music on its game. Those with the physical game, that were connected to the internet, got an update that simply made the song disappear or become unplayable. It was still there, just the game no longer recognized it.

2 • 
Avatar image for eyeball2452
eyeball2452

141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jenovaschilld: I don't know, but it could've happened. Licensing music in perpetuity for movies and TV is incredibly expensive for this reason. That's why you don't hear previous big hits used that often (yes popular artists often create new music though).

Upvote • 
  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2