Who owns what? Why console makers can legally brick your game console "If the ability [to brick a console] is there, someone will want to 'see how it goes.'" Kyle Orland – May 22, 2025 6:09 pm | 13 The martial artist is a console maker. The brick is your console. Credit: Getty Images The martial artist is a console maker. The brick is your console. Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Earlier this month, Nintendo received a lot of negative attention for an end-user license agreement (EULA) update granting the company the claimed right to render Switch consoles "permanently unusable in whole or in part" for violations such as suspected hacking or piracy. As it turns out, though, Nintendo isn't the only console manufacturer that threatens to remotely brick systems in response to rule violations. And attorneys tell Ars Technica that they're probably well within their legal rights to do so. Sony's System Software License Agreement on the PS5, for instance, contains the following paragraph of "remedies" it can take for "violations" such as use of modified hardware or pirated software (emphasis added). If SIE Inc determines that you have violated this Agreement's terms, SIE Inc may itself or may procure the taking of any action to protect its interests such as disabling access to or use of some or all System Software, disabling use of this PS5 system online or offline, termination of your access to PlayStation Network, denial of any warranty, repair or other services provided for your PS5 system, implementation of automatic or mandatory updates or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use, or reliance on any other remedial efforts as reasonably necessary to prevent the use of modified or unpermitted use of System Software. The same exact clause appears in the PlayStation 4 EULA as well. The PlayStation 3 EULA was missing the "disabling use... online or offline" clause, but it does still warn that Sony can take steps to "discontinue unauthorized use" or "prevent the use of a modified PS3 system, or any pirated material or equipment." Microsoft, if anything, is even more straightforward in its Xbox Software License Agreement. Efforts to "install Unauthorized Software" or "defeat or circumvent any... technical limitation, security, or anti-piracy system" can mean that "your Xbox Console, Kinect Sensor or Authorized Accessory may stop working permanently at that time or after a later Xbox Software update," the company writes. While it's unclear how far back in history this legal clause goes, the mention of the now-defunct Kinect sensor suggests it dates back at least to the Xbox One era. A prototype SX Core device soldered to a Nintendo Switch motherboard. Credit: Team Xeceuter A prototype SX Core device soldered to a Nintendo Switch motherboard. Credit: Team Xeceuter While console makers routinely ban players and consoles from online play and services, remotely bricking a game console's offline capabilities for EULA violations seems exceedingly rare in practice. Even when cases of public console hacking have led to protracted legal fights—such as George Hotz's saga with the PS3 or Team Xecuter's Switch jailbreaks—console makers don't seem to have used technical means to completely disable offline functions for specific consoles. In 2015, Microsoft even went so far as to actively deny reports that it had bricked a console associated with a leak of an early Gears of War beta. "To be clear, if a console is suspended from Xbox Live for a violation of the Terms of Use, it can still be used offline," Microsoft said at the time. "Microsoft enforcement action does not result in a console becoming unusable." That said, it appears console makers sometimes take steps to remotely brick consoles after they've been reported stolen. It's not hard to find online reports of people buying used consoles only to find that they had been rendered entirely useless due to a prior theft. As always with secondhand hardware, let the buyer beware. They have the (legal) power Just because the major console makers don't tend to make use of the "brick switch" on their hardware doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to do so. "Although users own the hardware, the software that's needed to run it is subject to a license agreement," attorney Jon Loiterman told Ars. "If you violate the license terms, Nintendo has the right to revoke your access to that software. It's less common for software makers to revoke access to software in a way that disables hardware you bought from them, but the principle is the same." While these kinds of "bricking" clauses haven't been tested in court, lawyers who spoke to Ars felt they would probably hold up to judicial review. That's especially true if the facts of the "bricking" case centered around software piracy or some other method of getting around digital rights protections baked into the console itself. Consoles like these may get banned from Nintendo's online services, but they tend to still work offline. Credit: Kate Temkin / ReSwitched Consoles like these may get banned from Nintendo's online services, but they tend to still work offline. Credit: Kate Temkin / ReSwitched "Unfortunately, 'bricking' personal devices to limit users’ rights and control their behavior is nothing new," Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Victoria Noble told Ars Technica. "It would likely take selective enforcement to rise to a problematic level [in court]," attorney Richard Hoeg said. Last year, a collection of 17 consumer groups urged the Federal Trade Commission to take a look at the way companies use the so-called practice of "software tethering" to control a device's hardware features after purchase. Thus far, though, the federal consumer watchdog has shown little interest in enforcing complaints against companies that do so. "Companies should not use EULAs to strip people of rights that we normally associate with ownership, like the right to tinker with or modify their own personal devices," Noble told Ars. "[Console] owners deserve the right to make otherwise legal modifications to their own devices without fear that a company will punish them by remotely bricking their [systems]." The court of public opinion In the end, these kinds of draconian bricking clauses may be doing their job even if the console makers involved don't invoke them. "In practice, I expect this kind of thing is more about scaring people away from jailbreaking and modifying their systems and that Nintendo is unlikely to go about bricking large volumes of devices, even if they technically have the right to," Loiterman said. "Just because they put a remedy in the EULA doesn’t mean they will certainly use it either," attorney Mark Methenitis said. "My suspicion is this is to go after the people who eventually succeeded in jailbreaking the original Switch and try to prevent that for the Switch 2." The threat of public backlash could also hold the console makers back from limiting the offline functionality of any hacked consoles. After citing public scrutiny that companies like Tesla, Keurig, and John Deere faced for limiting hardware via software updates, Methenitis said that he "would imagine Nintendo would suffer similar bad publicity if they push things too far." That said, legal capacities can sometimes tend to invite their own use. "If the ability is there, someone will want to 'see how it goes.'" Hoeg said. Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland has been the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica since 2012, writing primarily about the business, tech, and culture behind video games. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He once wrote a whole book about Minesweeper. 13 Comments