Related discussions with more comments:

* Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales (arstechnica.com) 110 comments, Sept 2024 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593

* CA law means stores can’t say you’re buying a game when you’re merely licensing it (polygon.com) 122 comments, Sept 2024| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41671838

This changes nothing, other than making companies replace all instances of "buy" with "add to account".

What I'm more interested in are laws against "changing the experience". You force a mandatory update that significantly changes the product in a way that I don't like (removing features or cramming ads into a device I paid for), I should have the option to revert to the original as-bought configuration, or get a complete refund.

“Renting” the content is a better description. Hopefully one day the pricing reflects that.

How about all sales that involved “ownership” be forced to function as actual ownership, retroactively?

I would rather they require the stores to sell the software not just change the wording for the existing BS.

Changing the wording to “license” just encourages “seasonal” licenses and no single payment option.

The article refers to "physical media" as though that was previously representative of actual ownership. Adobe "sold" versions of its creative suite that are no longer installable even if you have the physical media: Because they "had to shut down the activation servers". This practice should be part of that legislation - retroactively even.

Owners of a digitally disabled version should automatically get access to whatever the current version is. If Adobe isn't okay with that, I'm sure they can find a way to run that obviously heavily burdened server to activate what must be millions of calls. /s