> So you've verified this? Yes, verified. I would not have said it otherwise. https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/ https://www.playstatio

> So you've verified this? Yes, verified. I would not have said it otherwise. https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/ > 14.5. Class Action Waiver. > YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE AGREE THAT ARBITRATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION [...] > Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over. This specific case BTW: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.472492/gov.uscourts.cand.472492.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.47... I'm no lawyer, but IMHO they probably will reply that Sony has indeed violated CA. AB 2426 (effective since 01-jan-2025) and that Sony illegally tried to restrict customer rights in the first place, as per McGill v. Citibank https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s224086.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s...