On 12 February 2026, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) handed down a procedural ruling in the collective proceedings brought against Sony Interactive Entertainment.
The decision does not determine liability. But it does significantly expand the scope of the claim, and offers useful guidance for litigation funders, claimant firms and defendants managing large opt-out classes.
What the tribunal decided
The Class Representative, Alex Neill, applied to amend the definition of the claimant class.
Originally, the “Relevant Period” ran from 19 August 2016 to 19 August 2022. The Tribunal has now permitted an amendment extending the end date to 12 February 2026, shortly before trial.
As a result:
The claimant class now includes UK-domiciled PlayStation users who made qualifying digital purchases between 19 August 2016 and 12 February 2026
Millions of additional users may fall within scope
The enlargement of the class is likely to increase the claim’s overall exposure, as more purchases fall within scope.
Sony opposed the amendment, arguing that:
- The scale of the class would increase significantly at a late stage
There was insufficient time before trial for new class members to receive meaningful notice and a practical opportunity to take the step available to them — namely, to opt out (if UK-domiciled) or to opt in (if non-UK-domiciled).
The Tribunal rejected those objections.
The reasoning: access to justice over procedural neatness
The CAT unanimously permitted the amendment. Its reasoning is instructive for practitioners:
- Access to justice was central. The Tribunal concluded that refusing the amendment would leave a substantial number of users with live claims outside the proceedings simply because of timing.
- The statutory purpose of the regime matters. The Tribunal emphasised that the statutory objective of the regime is to facilitate collective redress. That policy consideration weighed heavily in favour of allowing the amendment.
- Three weeks was sufficient. The Tribunal accepted that the timetable was “compressed” and “not ideal”, describing the period as the “bare minimum”. However, it concluded that the time available for notice and opt-out/opt-in arrangements — just over three weeks following the ruling — was sufficient. The Tribunal also left open the possibility of a slightly later opt-in/opt-out deadline if Sony wished to apply for one.
In short: procedural inconvenience was outweighed by the policy objective of inclusive collective redress.
What this means for claimant firms and funders
For firms operating in the CAT regime, several practical points emerge.
1. Late-stage class expansion remains viable
The ruling signals that the Tribunal is prepared to permit amendments extending the class period close to trial, provided:
- The claims remain legally coherent
- Notice arrangements are workable
- Defendants are not materially prejudiced in their ability to defend the case.
That creates strategic scope to:
- Capture ongoing loss up to trial
- Avoid artificial cut-off dates
- Preserve claims that would otherwise fall outside limitation windows.
However, it also places pressure on case management, data modelling and damages methodology — particularly where quantum modelling must be updated at short notice.
2. Notice strategy is increasingly scrutinised
While the Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach here, the judgment should not be read as blanket tolerance for compressed timelines.
Late-stage amendments raise operational questions:
- Can administrators scale quickly?
- Is the notice programme robust and defensible?
- Are communications clear, accurate and transparent?
Transparency around commercial relationships and fee structures is increasingly scrutinised across the sector. For claimant firms working with introducers or marketing platforms, governance and clarity of role remain critical.
3. Quantum risk for defendants increases
Extending the Relevant Period to February 2026 materially increases the pool of potentially affected transactions.
In practical terms, that may increase:
- Aggregate damages exposure
- Settlement leverage
- Funding risk and insurance modelling.
Defendants facing CAT claims should expect claimant teams to seek amendments that track trial timetables where alleged conduct is ongoing. Early quantum assumptions based on fixed class periods may require revision.
A broader signal from the CAT
The ruling reinforces three structural features of the UK collective proceedings regime:
- The Tribunal will prioritise access to justice over procedural formality
- The regime is designed to be flexible and policy-driven
- Class definitions are not necessarily static until trial begins.
For litigation firms, this underlines the importance of:
- Active limitation management
- Scalable damages modelling
- Flexible funding strategies
- Contingency planning for late-stage amendments.
The PlayStation proceedings are ultimately about alleged abuse of dominance in digital distribution. But procedurally, this ruling may prove equally important.
It confirms that in opt-out competition claims before the CAT, the boundaries of the class can remain fluid, and that the Tribunal is willing to expand them where doing so better serves the objectives of collective redress.
At Join the Claim, we will continue to track and translate developments like this, supporting both consumers and the firms representing them as collective redress continues to evolve.
