2 ms·

> Much, much bigger fish have argued this and failed True, but this is a different jurisdiction. Is there any equivalent case you can point to in the UK?

jerf 3y ago
I'm aware of that, which is why you may note my last paragraph did not actually make any arguments based on precedent, instead using the court cases to observe that the companies have a history of hitting this with everything they have. But they are under common law as the US is, so pointing out that the customer complaint about being damaged strikes me as rather weak and much weaker than the developer's complaints is still valid in their system. I can't complain that Maserati are making way more profits than they should because they're charging high prices on their luxury goods. They could demand 10 times the price and I'm still not being damaged. It's their prerogative. Games are luxury goods too and if Sony wanted to sell them for 10x more, the remedy is to not buy them, and that's generally a much more competitive market where customers have a lot of other options too, e.g., most of the games being "overpriced" on PS5 are also available on at least one other platform, if not 3.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  In this case the claim rests on section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 [1] and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2], which still applies post-brexit. Both relate to abuse of a dominant market position to charge “unfair” prices. The judgement granting a Collective Proceedings Order is at [3]. It’s worth noting that this CPO (class action equivalent) regime in the UK is still developing its case law, having been dramatically expanded in a landmark 2020 case [4]. That case and the judgement implies that the merits of this case are largely untested by the court, so the fact that a CPO was granted doesn’t say all that much about whether Sony will lose. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 [3] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/15277722%20Alex%20Neill%20Class%20Representative%20Limited%20v%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Network%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20and%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20UK%20Limited%20-%20Jud_0.pdf https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/152777... [4] https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collective-actions-regime-where-are-we-now https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collect...

jerf 3y ago

I'm aware of that, which is why you may note my last paragraph did not actually make any arguments based on precedent, instead using the court cases to observe that the companies have a history of hitting this with everything they have. But they are under common law as the US is, so pointing out that the customer complaint about being damaged strikes me as rather weak and much weaker than the developer's complaints is still valid in their system. I can't complain that Maserati are making way more profits than they should because they're charging high prices on their luxury goods. They could demand 10 times the price and I'm still not being damaged. It's their prerogative. Games are luxury goods too and if Sony wanted to sell them for 10x more, the remedy is to not buy them, and that's generally a much more competitive market where customers have a lot of other options too, e.g., most of the games being "overpriced" on PS5 are also available on at least one other platform, if not 3.

semiquaver 3y ago
In this case the claim rests on section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 [1] and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2], which still applies post-brexit. Both relate to abuse of a dominant market position to charge “unfair” prices. The judgement granting a Collective Proceedings Order is at [3]. It’s worth noting that this CPO (class action equivalent) regime in the UK is still developing its case law, having been dramatically expanded in a landmark 2020 case [4]. That case and the judgement implies that the merits of this case are largely untested by the court, so the fact that a CPO was granted doesn’t say all that much about whether Sony will lose. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 [3] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/15277722%20Alex%20Neill%20Class%20Representative%20Limited%20v%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Network%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20and%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20UK%20Limited%20-%20Jud_0.pdf https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/152777... [4] https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collective-actions-regime-where-are-we-now https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collect...