Class actions under California’s AB 2426 are now hitting video game companies. AB 2426, which took effect at the start of last year, requires certain disclosures for sales of “digital goods” under a revocable license. This month, GameStop was sued in federal court over titles sold on its digital storefront. The plaintiff’s theory signals a more aggressive interpretation of the statute—and a broader view of what purchase flows violate it.

We wrote about AB 2426’s requirements and compliance strategies here and here before it took effect. A year in, and with the first lawsuits making their way through the courts, now is a good time to reassess purchase flows, including for game-related assets and add-ons.

Background on AB 2426

The statute applies to sellers of “digital goods”—defined as digital audiovisual works, audio works, books, codes, or applications or games—when using terms like “buy” or “purchase” that would lead a “reasonable person” to believe they’re receiving “unrestricted ownership” (as opposed to a revocable license).

The statute, codified under California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”) at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.6, creates two paths for compliance:

The GameStop Lawsuit

In this putative class action, the plaintiff asserts claims under the new FAL provisions, as well as under the Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Weber v. GameStop, Inc., No. 2:26-at-00047 (E.D. Cal.). The plaintiff alleges that he purchased a digital copy of Elden Ring Nightreign from GameStop’s website. He bases his claims on the entire purchase flow, focusing on indirect language—not express “buy” or “purchase” buttons at checkout.

In particular, the complaint highlights:

• Marketing language: "+4% back on all purchases" and “buy online” on the site;

• Cart mechanics: An “Add to Cart” button that plaintiff claims “misleadingly represent[s] that purchasing the digital version is like the physical copy”;

• Checkout button: Notably, plaintiff does not allege GameStop used a “Buy Now” or “Purchase” button at checkout—only a “Place Order” button.

This theory is broader than prior cases, which targeted large platforms with express “Buy” or “Purchase” buttons at the point of sale. Here, the plaintiff argues that cumulative impressions across the purchase flow—not just the final button—violate AB 2426.

The plaintiff also points to Steam’s implementation as a benchmark, alleging that Steam discloses: “A purchase of a digital product grants a license for the product on Steam,” with a link to its terms and conditions.

What to Review Now

Video game companies should audit their digital storefronts and purchase flows, reviewing: (1) checkout language; (2) associated marketing copy; and (3) cart and checkout flow.

In addition, companies should evaluate whether the products in their ecosystems could qualify as “digital goods” under AB 2426, including:

• Full game downloads

• In-game purchases (coins, power-ups, consumables)

• Cosmetic items (skins, avatars, emotes)

• Game mods (props, maps, custom content)

• Downloadable content (DLCs) and expansions

• Season passes and battle passes

This is an evolving area with multistate implications. Maryland passed a similar law that took effect on October 1, 2025, and New York has pending legislation. We expect plaintiffs to continue testing the boundaries of AB 2426, particularly around what creates an impression of ownership and what qualifies as a digital good. We are tracking these cases closely.