A collective action directed at the Antitrust authority involving about 12.2 million UK gamers claims that Sony “holds a dominant position in relation to the digital distribution of PlayStation games and game content” and that for this reason it has “unfairly charged excessively high prices to its UK customers for digital games and game content purchased through the PlayStation Store”.
THE ACCUSATIONS OF A “QUASI-MONOPOLY” AGAINST SONY
The core of the lawsuit concerns a precise accusation (which led it to be addressed to the competition authority) namely that the Japanese entertainment giant Sony “has a quasi-monopoly” on additional content and digital games sold through the PlayStation Store, which allows the Sol Levant software house to set prices and receive a 30 percent commission.
The claimants’ hope is clear: to trust that the authority will take the path of a similar collective action decided in October when the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Apple had abused its dominant market position and applied excessive fees to App Store users. In December, Apple appealed against the £1.5 billion ($2 billion) fine.
THE RESPONSES OF THE GIANT BEHIND PLAYSTATION
According to the Financial Times, Sony stated that allowing downloads from third-party stores could pose security and privacy risks. The Japanese company also claims that the commission on digital sales compensates for profits lost by selling its consoles at minimal profit.
WHO IS PARTICIPATING IN THE CLASS ACTION
The class action is likely to attract a large number of participants as, having similar contours, it concerns anyone in the UK who has owned a PlayStation console and purchased digital games or made in-game purchases through the PlayStation Store between August 19, 2016, and February 12, 2026.
It is also a class action that allows participation without having to take any action: it is sufficient to meet the aforementioned requirements. If the class action is successful, each participant could receive about £162 ($217). But above all, for Sony it risks being a dangerous precedent.
