Judge Richard Seeborg let the proposed class action move forward Tuesday, about nine months after he tentatively dismissed claims that Sony violated antitrust laws when it began requiring all game sales to go through the PlayStation Store. The company had previously allowed sales by retailers.
It’s plausible Sony “sacrificed short-term profits for long-term gain” by ending profitable retailer relationships in a bid to corner the market, Seeborg wrote. Other potential reasons for the policy change raise an affirmative defense that’s “better left for a later stage of litigation,” the judge said.
The dispute is part of a wave of similar cases confronting companies that run dominant tech platforms, including
Seeborg tossed the PlayStation case in July from the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Though the suit spelled out an “antitrust injury” and properly defined the market, it fell short of connecting the dots to show how Sony profited from the policy change, the judge said at the time.
But the video gamers leading the case fixed those flaws in their amended complaint, he found Tuesday. The new allegations about how the PlayStation game market works, if true, “just barely” establish that Sony’s “only conceivable rationale” was to cut out competitors, Seeborg said in a brief opinion.
Motley Rice LLC is lead counsel for the gamers, who are also represented variously by Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, and Jeff S. Westerman of Encino, Calif. Sony is represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP.
The case is Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 21-cv-3361, 2/7/23.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.