[Reason077]

> ”Revocation should come with full refunds.”

Of course it should. If Sony are not doing that then it sounds like grounds for a class action?

I remember when Google shut down Stadia. To their credit, they automatically refunded everything I’d ever purchased on the platform. Nice little windfall.

[apparent]

The lawsuit would have to prove that Sony didn't abide by it's T&Cs, which it seems like they may well have. The issue then is whether it's OK to have T&Cs that seemingly conflict with the "buy" characterization that customers are presented with.

[Reason077]

Just because something is written in T&Cs doesn’t make it okay. Consumer laws have precedence over T&Cs.

[apparent]

Consumer protection laws can prevail over terms and conditions, it's true. Are there any consumer protection laws that disallow terms and conditions like the ones Sony used?

[cogman10]

I believe the FTC could probably do something about it if they cared.

This seems to be something that the "Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices" charter of the FTC could address.

The three prongs of when it applies are

- Causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers

- Cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers

- Is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition

It seems like stealing movies users purchased thinking they owned them checks all 3 boxes.

[apparent]

Generally agree, if Sony is deleting things from user-owned devices. If they're simply not making them available for later download, it's trickier. The case against Sony would be stronger if customers could not move downloaded content from their current devices.

[jjav]

They should I agree, but consumer protection has been decimated in the US. Also the CFPB has effectively been dismantled. All is fair game as long as the oligarchs get a few more millions they don't need.

[reilly3000]

I strongly feel that if I click on a button that says “Buy” I am making a permanent purchase. The verb should be called “License” or “Lease” to reflect the nature of the transaction or it is inherently deceptive and should be illegal.

[worthless-trash]

Pretty sure the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is going to have a field day with this.

[scoofy]

It's very obviously false advertising. You can't say "free flight to europe" and then in the fine print say "no free flight to europe." It's just blatant false advertising to have a "rent" next to a "buy" button you click to acquire what is effectively a long term rental.

[soraminazuki]

Those T&Cs contain clauses that allow companies to 1. arbitrarily change its terms whenever they want and 2. forbid consumers from suing them. They make a complete mockery of justice, and they might as well just write "haha, screw you" to save all of us time.

[preg_match]

I believe generally contract law is not as hard-and-fast as people think. You can truly put anything in a contract. But... that doesn't necessarily mean it's God's word. Even if everyone read it and signed it. I can't take your first born even if you willingly agree. Well, I can in some instances - a company can't buy your first born I should say.

Also many contracts are just uncontested. Everyone is just hoping they work, but nobody is testing it out.

[vitally3643]

Incorrect. A lawsuit would have to prove Sony didn't abide by law, or that their actions are harmful or egregious enough to justify a new law.

T&C are not laws, and aren't even legally binding in most situations. They exist purely as an ass-covering maneuver and self-justification for customer abuse.

[semiquaver]

Terms and Conditions are contracts and have repeatedly been affirmed as such by the courts.

True, illegal contract provisions are not enforceable but there’s not actually an allegation that anything illegal has taken place.

It sounds like you are describing the world as you with it existed rather than as it actually does.

[StilesCrisis]

They even refunded the controller and Chromecast Ultra, which still work to this day (just not to play Stadia).