Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Plaintffs class files renewed motion for approval of settlement in Sony PlayStation Store digital game pricing lawsuit, (Aug 20, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The class of purchaser plaintiffs argue that PlayStation credits are fair, reasonable, and adequate relief and do not constitute coupons.

The plaintiffs in the class action suit against Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC alleging the company engaged in anticompetitive practices by eliminating the sale of digital PlayStation game vouchers at retail stores, filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs seek approval of the proposed $7.85 million settlement in the form of cash-value PlayStation Network (PSN) account credits to be electronically distributed directly to Settlement Class members’ PSN accounts. Previously, the court had expressed a view that it considers that PSN account credits akin to “coupons” and raised the issue whether they are disfavored. The renewed motion argues that the PSN credits, which will be electronically distributed to eligible gamers in lieu of cash, are not considered “coupons” under Ninth Circuit standards. The motion also argues that preliminary approval is warranted under Rule 23(e), and that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate (Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, No. 3:21-cv-03361-AMO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025)).

Background. The lawsuit, which was initially filed in 2021, claimed that Sony’s April 2019 decision to stop selling game-specific vouchers (GSVs) at retailers like Amazon, Best Buy, GameStop, Target, and Walmart resulted in supracompetitive prices for digital PlayStation games. While general PSN gift cards remained available at these retailers, customers could no longer purchase codes for specific games. The complaint alleged this was an anticompetitive move that unlawfully terminated a profitable course of dealing with retailers, arguing that Sony’s only rational purpose for ending the program was to exclude competition in the digital PlayStation game market.

Settlement details. According to the previous motion for preliminary approval filed on December 13, 2024, the proposed settlement would provide PSN account credits to approximately 4.4 million users who purchased certain digital games through the PlayStation Store between April 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023. The settlement fund is non-reversionary, meaning unclaimed funds will not return to Sony, and eligible class members with active PSN accounts will receive their credits automatically without needing to file claims. For those with deactivated accounts, the settlement provides options to receive compensation by contacting administrators through a dedicated phone number, email, or mailing address to verify their qualifying purchases.

Distribution and eligibility. Under the proposed settlement, eligible class members with active PSN accounts will automatically receive account credits without needing to submit claim forms. The settlement administrator, A.B. Data Ltd., will work with Sony to distribute the funds directly to users’ accounts. Class members with deactivated accounts can contact the settlement administrators to provide documentation of their qualifying purchases and receive compensation.

To qualify for the settlement, users must have purchased digital games through the PlayStation Store that met specific criteria: the games must have had GSVs available at retail before April 2019, with at least 200 GSV redemptions prior to that date, and shown a price increase of at least fifty cents compared to pre-April 2019 prices. Sony’s preliminary analysis identified approximately 103 games that meet these qualification requirements, a significantly smaller number than initially contemplated when the lawsuit was filed.

Prior motion. In July, 2025, a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement brought by Plaintiff Adrian Cendejas was denied by the federal district court for the northern District of California in a class action lawsuit alleging Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) engaged in anticompetitive practices by eliminating the sale of digital PlayStation game vouchers at retail stores. The proposed settlement agreement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, came after three years of litigation and extensive discovery revealing that while the practice affected fewer games than initially thought, some consumers paid higher prices after Sony’s policy change in April 2019. Highlighting only “the most glaring shortcomings in Cendejas’s motion for preliminary approval and the parties’ proposed settlement” the court denied the motion because it: (1) did not provide an estimated recovery or a range of potential recovery for class members; (2) failed to include an estimated recovery had the proposed class prevailed on each claim; (3) required further clarification of Plaintiffs’ theory of injury before the court could find that the limitations imposed to create the Settlement Class results in equitable treatment of putative class members now excluded; and (4) provided no comparators and thus no information against which the court could assess the settlement.

Arm’s Length Negotiations. The renewed motion asserts that the settlement was a result of arm’s length negotiations and is presumptively fair. The settlement was reached after extensive discovery (over 100,000 documents), two motions to dismiss, a motion to deny class certification, and mediation by Christopher Hockett. The motion argues these factors create a presumption of fairness due to non-collusive, informed negotiations.

Credits not coupons. The motion argues that the PSN credits, which will be electronically distributed to eligible gamers in lieu of cash, are not considered “coupons” under Ninth Circuit standards. The Ninth Circuit noted three factors for courts to consider in determining whether a settlement constitute a coupon: (i) whether class members have ‘to hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of the relief; (ii) whether the relief is only valid for ‘select products or services’; and (iii) how much flexibility the relief provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferrable under McKnight v. Hinojosa, 54 F.4th 1069, 9th Cir. 2022.

Here, the plaintiffs assert that the first factor is satisfied, as class members will have a credit deposited directly into their respective PSN account(s) without the burden of completing and mailing a claim form. Thus, the credits are readily available for purchases and not subject to potential loss of use for failure to complete a claim form, or inability to evidence a purchase. The plaintiffs also assert that the second factor is met, as the credit will be placed in the PSN accounts of eligible class members is not limited to “select products or purchases.” Finally, as to the third factor, the plaintiffs argue that although the PSN account credit is not transferrable, the credits will never expire and the lack of expiration weighs against it being a coupon when considered with lack of transferability.

The plaintiffs also argue that even if the credits are viewed as coupons they should not be disfavored because of their positive characteristics in light of the Ninth Circuit test. They argue that the credits here are fair, reasonable, and adequate relief in this case.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-03361-AMO.

Judge: Martínez-Olguín, A.

Attorneys: Carl Richard Hansen (Zimmerman Reed, LLP) for Agustin Caccuri. Joshua H. Lerner (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) for Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC.

Companies: Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

News: Antitrust CaliforniaNews