FOLLOW US

Gamers pursuing antitrust claims against Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC have made a third attempt to secure preliminary approval of a $7.85 million settlement, revising the proposal to address concerns raised by a California federal judge.

In a renewed motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs narrowed the scope of the agreement by removing two of the three original named plaintiffs from the proposed class. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín had previously questioned whether Agustin Caccuri and Allen Neumark were eligible to remain class representatives or receive service awards, given that they did not make qualifying purchases under the proposed class definition.

Under the revised settlement, Caccuri and Neumark would no longer be part of the class. The remaining named plaintiff would proceed alone. The gamers argued that this adjustment directly responds to the court’s concerns about standing and compensation. They acknowledged the judge’s skepticism over proposed $10,000 service awards for the two individuals and suggested that, if necessary, those payments could come from attorneys’ fees rather than class funds.

The case centers on allegations that Sony violated antitrust laws by restricting retailers from selling download codes for PlayStation digital games. According to the complaint, Sony previously allowed third-party retailers such as Amazon.com Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Walmart Inc. and GameStop Corp. to offer game-specific vouchers. Plaintiffs claim that after Sony curtailed those sales in 2019, consumers were steered toward purchasing digital titles directly through the PlayStation Store, allegedly reducing retail price competition.

Sony has denied wrongdoing, and the proposed settlement includes no admission of liability.

Judge Martínez-Olguín rejected an earlier version of the agreement in July 2025, questioning whether the relief — distributed as credits to users’ PlayStation Network accounts — functioned as coupons. The Ninth Circuit has expressed caution toward coupon-based settlements, which can provide limited real-world value to consumers.

Plaintiffs responded that the credits have fixed monetary value and can be used without additional spending. In their latest filing, they reiterated that class members could apply the credits toward games or add-ons priced under $1 or discounted content, meaning users would not be required to pay out of pocket to benefit.

The proposed class would include PlayStation Network accounts that purchased at least one qualifying retail voucher before April 1, 2019, covering a class period from April 2019 through December 2023. Plaintiffs estimate roughly 4.4 million accounts fall within the definition, though they acknowledge some individuals may hold multiple accounts.

In defending the $7.85 million figure, the gamers emphasized that the scope of the case narrowed during discovery. They stated that fewer games were affected than initially believed, some titles were sold at the same or higher prices at retail, and many digital games saw little voucher redemption activity before Sony’s policy shift. They further noted that average prices for certain titles decreased after the company changed its approach.

According to their filing, one damages estimate developed during settlement discussions calculated potential overcharges at $29.6 million, based on games whose prices rose at least $5 after April 2019. Plaintiffs contend that litigation risks — including challenges to class certification and the merits of the antitrust claims — justified the negotiated compromise.

The agreement allocates approximately $1.96 million, or 25% of the settlement fund, for attorneys’ fees. Class counsel maintain that the requested amount is below the value of time spent litigating the matter, which they estimate at roughly $8 million.

The case, Caccuri et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, has been pending since 2021. Whether the latest revisions will satisfy the court remains to be seen, as the judge weighs concerns about class representation, the structure of the relief, and the overall fairness of the settlement to PlayStation users.