British lawsuit against Sony for alleged monopoly practices

[Harrison]

A ?2 billion ($2.7bn) class-action lawsuit against Sony, led by Alex Neill, began in London's Competition Appeal Tribunal in March 2026.

The suit alleges Sony misused its market dominance to overcharge 12 million UK users on digital game purchases, demanding 30% commission, and seeking compensation of ~?162 each for potential overcharging.
Key Aspects of the Case.

• Allegations: Sony restricts sales to its proprietary PlayStation Store, preventing competition and driving up prices, making digital games more expensive than physical counterparts.
• Scope: Affects anyone in the UK who bought digital games or in-game content between August 19, 2016, and February 12, 2026 (opt-out basis).
• Sony's Defense: Sony argues its "closed ecosystem" is necessary for security, and high fees subsidize the sale of gaming hardware (consoles).
• Current Status: The trial is expected to last around 10 weeks starting March 10, 2026.

The case is part of a wave of UK litigation against tech giants, similar to previous rulings against Apple over app store charges.

[Harrison]

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it's completely stupid.

Do you think they will win this lawsuit against Sony? Whilst I would gain from this as I would receive compensation if they won, I don't agree with it.

Nintendo also run their own closed online store to buy games. And I don't personally see an issue with that. If you don't like the price of a game then no one is forcing you to buy it. Consoles have always traditionally had their own exclusive online stores since they started being online. They all run sales and promotions,

Xbox have their own store and you could argue Gamepass even increases monopoly locked out status for it's subscribers,

If anyone doesn't like this closed ecosystem they can move to PC. But then some are now trying to go after Steam too, for exactly the same reasons. Stating they take too big a cut from game sales and are a monopoly, But unlike a closed console platform that really doesn't hold water. Steam is so popular and has a near monopoly because people decide to use it. But they don't need to. PC gamers can buy games from many sites or download platforms. Some argue that many other sites are just selling Steam Keys so it maintains their monopoly, but you can equally decide to buy your games directly from places like GOG, Amazon gaming, Epic or the EA App f.ex. So I couldn't see a similar action against Steam winning.

[Stephen Coates]

I don't play games so I don't really know about consoles, but it sounds like the same situation as the Apple iPhone App Store, which is the way Google is trying to go with Android (I got an Android phone recently - one of the selling points was that I can install whatever I want from wherever I want).

[Harrison]

It's a bit different. Apple have always had a closed ecosystem whereby you have always had to buy and download apps from their own store. The same is true for Playstation and Xbox, although you can buy product (game) keys from third parties sellers and activate them from your console. Although a ckeckdown has taken place for third party keys on all platforms, including PC as some are selling keys from different regions (PC Steam keys even need a VPN to active them from a different region), or the keys might be promotional and not meant for resale, or they have been obtained illegally. With such keys if it looks too good to be true, as with everything, it probably is.

Regarding Android, I was also annoyed that from Android 14 they will be locking down the OS a lot more and won't make it very easy to install unsigned SDKs manually, as you have always been able to do until now right from version 2.3 which is the first one I used. But there is a reason. It won't allow older SDKs to be installed if they were built for an older version of Android. As with Windows and Linux install packages, Android SDKs that are signed hold the version compatibility. So as an OS developer they want to ensure the software is fully compatible, It also tried to remove the ability to install older apps that might have security issues. But I personally am against such restrictions when the existing system worked well enough as you still had to go into the device settings to allow unsigned SDKs to be installed, and the majority of users would never need or even look for such a setting.

You can however still install SDKs in Android 14 using something called the ADB (Android Debug Bridge) to make it bypass the standard installer. But you could also manually edit the installer package using ARKTool to edit the AndroidManifest.xml file to change the version to a higher one so Android lets it install, There are also third party tooks such as Shizuku that automate the ADB bypass process. I@ve not tried them but might as and when I get a device running Android 14. My current Samsung phone is on 13.

There is also Amazon and their Fire devices. They also run Android but altered to the Fire OS and using their own App store. But you can manually add the Play store back and the required libraries needed to run it and normal Android Apps. This is a cheap way to get an Android tablet. I bought a Fire 10 plus tablet for under ?200 when they first came out, added the Play store and it works and has the performance of a Samsung tablet that costs a lot more, I just hope Amazon don't lock down their Fire devices too.

The problem is, people are moaning about closed ecosystems, but governments are putting pressure on makers and OS developers to make their devices more secure and to vet all software running on them. They can't have it both ways.