Dutch consumers are suing Sony over the argument that Sony controls about 80% of the console market in the Netherlands and abuses its dominant market position.


Ultimately, the Dutch consumer group Stichting Massaschade & Consument, representing 1.7 million Dutch Playstation users, makes the same claim that the regulators are making against dominant tech platforms like Apple and Google, who wield market abusive, and likely illegal, powers over digital ecosystems.

Uniquely here, the case represents the consumer’s fight for fairness following the February launch of the “Fair PlayStation” campaign that criticizes the Sony tax” where digital games are allegedly priced up to 47% higher despite lower distribution costs. The lawsuits, if successful, could not only force Sony to compensate affected users, it would also open Sony to third party game stores and prove a vital cornerstone in the developer’s fight for market access against big corporations.

What Happened?
Sony’s digital ecosystem is closed by design: PlayStation users can only purchase games and add-ons through the official PlayStation Store, while third-party resellers like Amazon or Green Man Gaming are completely excluded. This gives Sony complete control over pricing and distribution, along with a standard 30% commission on all digital sales.

This setup results in limited consumer choice and higher prices - commonly referred to as the “Sony Tax.” While physical PlayStation games remain available through retailers with competitive pricing, the same is not true for digital content. Sony sells two PS5 models: a Standard Edition with a disc drive and a Digital Edition without one. Owners of the Digital Edition are fully locked into Sony’s digital-only ecosystem. Additionally, since 2019, Sony has banned third-party sales of digital game codes, preventing developers from offering their games directly or through alternative platforms.

What This Means for Game Developers?
Sony’s digital policies tightly restrict how developers can price, promote, and distribute their games. Independent discounts, regional pricing, and time-limited promotions all require Sony’s approval, while selling digital codes through developers’ own websites or third-party platforms is prohibited - practices common on PC and Xbox.

This creates a single point of access - the PlayStation store - where visibility and revenue opportunities are tightly controlled. Placement depends entirely on Sony’s algorithm and editorial discretion - a barrier for many indie and mid-sized studios. With no option to drive external traffic or leverage affiliate marketing, discoverability becomes yet another gate that only Sony can open.

This lack of alternative sales channels leaves developers fully exposed to Sony’s standard 30% commission, with no way to offset it through direct sales or discounted offers, limiting both pricing flexibility and growth potential compared to other platforms.

Is the “Walled Garden” and “Sony Tax” illegal?
Under EU competition law, companies with a dominant market position are strictly prohibited from abusing that power to the detriment of consumers or competition. The key legal provision is Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which bans abusive practices such as excessive pricing and unfair trading conditions. Dutch law reflects this through Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act, which mirrors the principles of Article 102.

Legally, the Dutch Consumer Foundation argues that Sony controls about 80% of the console market in the Netherlands and has abused this dominant position by restricting developers and resellers from offering digital PlayStation games outside the PlayStation Store. They claim this has created an artificially closed market that inflates prices and harms consumer choice. According to their research, digital PlayStation games can cost up to 47% more than physical copies.

If upheld in court, this pricing model could be considered excessive pricing under Article 102 TFEU - a form of exploitative abuse - particularly if Sony’s digital prices are found to significantly exceed what would be expected in a competitive market.

Beyond Article 102, the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into effect in 2023, introduces new rules targeting large online platforms classified as “gatekeepers,” including Sony’s PlayStation Store. The DMA mandates fair and transparent pricing, prohibits self-preferential treatment, and aims to foster cross-border competition within the EU’s digital single market. This legislation enhances regulatory oversight and restricts the kind of closed ecosystem Sony has built around digital game sales.

What’s Next?
The first court hearing is expected later this year, beginning with the Dutch court assessing whether it has jurisdiction and whether the consumer foundation can represent the class. Cases like this can take several years to resolve, especially if appeals follow an initial ruling.

If the court ultimately grants the claims, the foundation expects that Sony could be required not only to open its platform to third-party digital game sellers, but also to compensate millions of Dutch consumers for alleged overcharges. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could also set a legal precedent for similar lawsuits in other EU countries, putting further pressure on Sony - and possibly other platform operators - to reform their digital distribution models.

While Sony is battling similar cases also in England and Portugal, this case arrives at a moment of mounting political will to rein in digital gatekeepers. With laws like the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) already targeting tech giants like Apple and Google, Sony may now find itself drawn into a broader regulatory push for platform accountability and consumer and game developer choice. Whether driven by regulators or consumers, the message is becoming clear: the era of closed ecosystems is under challenge.

Dutch consumers are suing Sony over the argument that Sony controls about 80% of the console market in the Netherlands and abuses its dominant market position.


Ultimately, the Dutch consumer group Stichting Massaschade & Consument, representing 1.7 million Dutch Playstation users, makes the same claim that the regulators are making against dominant tech platforms like Apple and Google, who wield market abusive, and likely illegal, powers over digital ecosystems.

Uniquely here, the case represents the consumer’s fight for fairness following the February launch of the “Fair PlayStation” campaign that criticizes the Sony tax” where digital games are allegedly priced up to 47% higher despite lower distribution costs. The lawsuits, if successful, could not only force Sony to compensate affected users, it would also open Sony to third party game stores and prove a vital cornerstone in the developer’s fight for market access against big corporations.

What Happened?
Sony’s digital ecosystem is closed by design: PlayStation users can only purchase games and add-ons through the official PlayStation Store, while third-party resellers like Amazon or Green Man Gaming are completely excluded. This gives Sony complete control over pricing and distribution, along with a standard 30% commission on all digital sales.

This setup results in limited consumer choice and higher prices - commonly referred to as the “Sony Tax.” While physical PlayStation games remain available through retailers with competitive pricing, the same is not true for digital content. Sony sells two PS5 models: a Standard Edition with a disc drive and a Digital Edition without one. Owners of the Digital Edition are fully locked into Sony’s digital-only ecosystem. Additionally, since 2019, Sony has banned third-party sales of digital game codes, preventing developers from offering their games directly or through alternative platforms.

What This Means for Game Developers?
Sony’s digital policies tightly restrict how developers can price, promote, and distribute their games. Independent discounts, regional pricing, and time-limited promotions all require Sony’s approval, while selling digital codes through developers’ own websites or third-party platforms is prohibited - practices common on PC and Xbox.

This creates a single point of access - the PlayStation store - where visibility and revenue opportunities are tightly controlled. Placement depends entirely on Sony’s algorithm and editorial discretion - a barrier for many indie and mid-sized studios. With no option to drive external traffic or leverage affiliate marketing, discoverability becomes yet another gate that only Sony can open.

This lack of alternative sales channels leaves developers fully exposed to Sony’s standard 30% commission, with no way to offset it through direct sales or discounted offers, limiting both pricing flexibility and growth potential compared to other platforms.

Is the “Walled Garden” and “Sony Tax” illegal?
Under EU competition law, companies with a dominant market position are strictly prohibited from abusing that power to the detriment of consumers or competition. The key legal provision is Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which bans abusive practices such as excessive pricing and unfair trading conditions. Dutch law reflects this through Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act, which mirrors the principles of Article 102.

Legally, the Dutch Consumer Foundation argues that Sony controls about 80% of the console market in the Netherlands and has abused this dominant position by restricting developers and resellers from offering digital PlayStation games outside the PlayStation Store. They claim this has created an artificially closed market that inflates prices and harms consumer choice. According to their research, digital PlayStation games can cost up to 47% more than physical copies.

If upheld in court, this pricing model could be considered excessive pricing under Article 102 TFEU - a form of exploitative abuse - particularly if Sony’s digital prices are found to significantly exceed what would be expected in a competitive market.

Beyond Article 102, the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into effect in 2023, introduces new rules targeting large online platforms classified as “gatekeepers,” including Sony’s PlayStation Store. The DMA mandates fair and transparent pricing, prohibits self-preferential treatment, and aims to foster cross-border competition within the EU’s digital single market. This legislation enhances regulatory oversight and restricts the kind of closed ecosystem Sony has built around digital game sales.

What’s Next?
The first court hearing is expected later this year, beginning with the Dutch court assessing whether it has jurisdiction and whether the consumer foundation can represent the class. Cases like this can take several years to resolve, especially if appeals follow an initial ruling.

If the court ultimately grants the claims, the foundation expects that Sony could be required not only to open its platform to third-party digital game sellers, but also to compensate millions of Dutch consumers for alleged overcharges. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could also set a legal precedent for similar lawsuits in other EU countries, putting further pressure on Sony - and possibly other platform operators - to reform their digital distribution models.

While Sony is battling similar cases also in England and Portugal, this case arrives at a moment of mounting political will to rein in digital gatekeepers. With laws like the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) already targeting tech giants like Apple and Google, Sony may now find itself drawn into a broader regulatory push for platform accountability and consumer and game developer choice. Whether driven by regulators or consumers, the message is becoming clear: the era of closed ecosystems is under challenge.

In 2024, the total value of mergers and acquisitions was approximately $1.7 trillion US dollars. It is an undeniable fact that mergers and acquisitions bring in economic benefits.


As such, whenever there is a change of administration, interested parties are on the lookout to see how mergers and acquisitions will be impacted by the new administration. Therefore, the question is whether mergers and acquisitions will be affected under the new Trump administration.

Historical Context

During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), his approach to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) shifted from pro-business and lightly regulated to stricter enforcement, with 2020 seeing more merger challenges than any year under the Obama administration. Trump’s interventions often seem to have reflected personal and political motives, such as opposing the AT&T–Time Warner merger, which was linked to CNN. Meanwhile, he supported Disney’s purchase of 21st Century Fox, owned by ally Rupert Murdoch.

After his 2024 reelection, many expected renewed deregulation and the repeal of Biden’s 2023 Merger Guidelines. Yet, nearly a year into his second term, those guidelines remain, and M&A activity has seen little growth, as evidenced by the 4,535 deals recorded between January and May 2025, similar to the previous year. Analysts attribute the slowdown to economic and policy instability, particularly shifting tariffs. However, the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is expected to revive the M&A market.

Changes During the Current Administration

The OBBBA is expected to help the M&A market, especially in the energy, financial and industrial sectors. Furthermore, the OBBA reinstates a “100% bonus depreciation for certain assets, generous interest deductibility and, crucially, no new carried-interest curb. This should mean there are more tax shields, more debt capacity, and a relative valuation boost for asset-heavy U.S. companies.”

Advantages Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The OBBBA includes a 100% bonus depreciation, which essentially means that if a buyer acquires a business with many fixed-assets, they may deduct much of the cost faster. This would improve the after-tax cash flow for the buyer.

Furthermore, the OBBBA now includes an enhanced business interest deduction of 30% of EBITDA. Previously, the business interest deduction was capped at 30% of EBIT. With the inclusion of depreciation and amortization, taxpayers will now be able to deduct more interest. Also, this would mean that there is a greater tax benefit from using debt in an acquisition.

Finally, the OBBBA also included changes to the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) regulated under Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code. C Corporations with less than $50 million of gross assets have historically qualified for this benefit. Under the OBBBA, the gross asset cap has been increased to $75 million, making more businesses eligible. Previously, taxpayers could exclude $10 million in gains, now that number has increased to $15 million.

Risks

The OBBBA notably addressed the international corporate tax regime, specifically the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT). The countries that are subject to BEAT will see an increase of 0.5%, now paying 10.5% instead of 10%. Past drafts of the OBBBA, included the BEAT at 12% in the now discarded Section 899.

While the initial drafts of the OBBBA, specifically Section 899, included more tax increases for international corporations, this reflects an ongoing sentiment of promoting domestic growth at the sake of international corporations wishing to invest.

Practical Guidance

Any company considering a merger or acquisition of an American company must be aware of legislative changes that may occur within the Trump administration.

Anyone considering a merger must know that the provisions of the OBBBA favor acquisitions of business with fixed-assets and that the acquisitions be financed via debt. Opting for acquisitions in this way and those in Trump’s preferred sectors, are the best way to take advantage of the current administration’s stance on mergers and acquisitions.

Foreign investors and buyers, however, must be mindful of OBBA’s intent and potential future legislative changes negatively affecting their cross border transaction. While the original draft of the OBBBA only included, but did not pass, a proposed revenge tax on certain foreign persons who would be determined by the U.S. Treasury, it is important to remember that at its core, OBBBA is meant to favor domestic growth. As such, it is likely that any new laws will also follow suit which may negatively impact cross border transactions.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Latest Articles

Q1 2021 Tax Deadlines

2021 Estimated Tax – 2020 Tax Returns