Our EULA scoring system and evaluation principles evaluate key aspects like data privacy in gaming and player rights to help you understand the impact of legal terms in games. Each game is rated on factors such as data collection, content ownership, and how these terms affect your personal information. With this system, gamers can make informed choices, protecting their privacy and ensuring they fully grasp the implications of the EULA they agree to.
Learn what is EULA and why it is important:
Readability:
How easy is it to understand the language and structure?
- Why It’s Important: Users need to know how their personal information is collected, used, shared, and stored. Data is valuable, and companies often collect more than just necessary data for their services. Transparent data practices ensure that users can make informed decisions about their privacy and what they consent to.
- Potential Harm: A lack of transparency can lead to the misuse or over-collection of personal data. Users might unwittingly agree to let the company share their data with third parties, including advertisers, marketers, or even governments, without clear boundaries. In extreme cases, this could lead to data breaches, identity theft, or unauthorized surveillance. Users also lose trust in a platform if they feel their data is being mishandled or exploited without their explicit knowledge.
- Scoring:
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Language | The EULA is filled with legal jargon, complex terms, and obscure phrasing, making it nearly impossible for the average user to understand. It feels deliberately misleading or confusing. | The EULA contains a lot of legal terms, and while some sections are understandable, important details are still hidden behind unclear language, potentially harming the user. | The language is generally clear but certain sections may contain jargon or vague terms, making it difficult for users to fully grasp some of their rights. | The EULA uses mostly plain language, with a few legal terms that are either explained or easily understood. Users can mostly understand the document without legal expertise. | The EULA is written in plain, straightforward language with no legal jargon. Users can easily understand every aspect without confusion or the need for legal advice. |
| Text Structure and Formatting | The EULA is a massive block of text with no headings, subheadings, or formatting, making it extremely difficult for users to navigate and find important information. | The EULA has some formatting, but it’s inconsistent or poorly done, making it hard for users to locate key sections without wading through large chunks of text. | The EULA is formatted adequately with some headings and bullet points, but important information is still buried or not highlighted, making it moderately difficult to follow. | The EULA is well-organized with clear headings and subheadings. Important sections are broken down, making the document easy to navigate, though some minor points might still be unclear. | The EULA is highly structured, with headings, subheadings, and bullet points clearly separating each section. It’s designed to be as user-friendly as possible, ensuring important points are easy to find. |
| Length and Conciseness | The EULA is excessively long, filled with redundant clauses and unnecessary legal details, making it overwhelming and harmful by discouraging users from reading the entire document. | The EULA is relatively long, with some unnecessary information that feels like filler. It’s difficult for users to distinguish the critical parts from the less relevant sections. | The EULA is moderately concise, but there are still some areas where it could be shorter without sacrificing clarity. Users might struggle to stay engaged but can generally follow the document. | The EULA is concise, with minimal unnecessary information. Most sections focus on essential terms, making it easier for users to read through and understand without losing interest. | The EULA is extremely concise, focusing only on key points and user rights. There is no filler or redundant language, making it easy and quick for users to read through without confusion. |
| User-Friendly Explanations and Examples | The EULA provides no explanations or examples for difficult terms, leaving users to interpret complex legal language on their own, increasing the likelihood of misunderstanding their rights. | The EULA offers minimal explanations, with a few difficult terms clarified, but most of the document is left without additional help, leaving users in a potentially harmful position. | Some key terms are explained, and limited examples are provided, but the majority of the EULA assumes users understand the legal concepts being used. | The EULA explains most difficult terms and provides examples to clarify user rights and obligations, but a few areas still leave users with questions. | The EULA provides clear explanations and real-world examples for all complex terms, ensuring users fully understand their rights, obligations, and potential risks. |
| Availability of a Summary Version | There is no summary version, and users are forced to read the entire, often complex, EULA to understand any of the terms, creating a highly harmful situation for users who don’t have time or expertise to review it fully. | A summary is provided, but it is overly simplistic and does not capture the key terms. Users still need to read the full document to understand important details. | A partial summary is provided, highlighting some key terms, but critical sections are left out, leaving users with an incomplete understanding. | The EULA offers a comprehensive summary, which covers most of the important points, though users may still need to refer to the full text for some specifics. | A clear and complete summary of all key points is provided, allowing users to understand their rights, obligations, and potential risks without reading the entire EULA. It’s designed with the user’s benefit in mind. |
Data and Privacy:
Evaluates how aggressively a company collects, shares, and retains user data, and the potential risks this poses to user privacy and control.
- Why It’s Important: This category focuses on how much control users have over their personal data and whether the company’s data practices respect privacy. With increasing amounts of sensitive information being collected, from gaming habits to personal identifiers, it’s crucial for users to know if their data is being safeguarded or exploited. A user-oriented EULA should ensure that only essential data is collected, with clear limits on sharing and robust user control over its use.
- Potential Harm: Poor data handling can lead to significant privacy violations, including the sale of personal data to third parties, behavioral tracking, and targeted advertising without consent. This can expose users to identity theft, unwanted surveillance, and even cyberattacks if data is shared or stored insecurely. Without clear user control, sensitive information may be retained indefinitely, putting users at long-term risk of exploitation and misuse.
- Scoring:
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Data Collection | The company engages in extremely intrusive data collection, including sensitive information (e.g., health, financial data) without clear consent or user control. | The company collects excessive data (e.g., biometric data, browsing history) or tracks user activities across platforms without clear consent or the ability to opt out. | The company collects significant personal data beyond what is strictly necessary (e.g., detailed behavioral tracking, device information) with limited opt-out options. | The company collects some additional data (e.g., usage metrics, location) but offers clear opt-out mechanisms for non-essential data collection. | The company collects only necessary data for the service to function, such as basic account information and gameplay data. |
| Data Sharing with Third Parties | The company engages in unrestricted or broad data sharing with third parties, including potential data brokers, without any transparency or user consent. | The company shares data with numerous third parties, including those involved in behavioral advertising, with minimal transparency or user control. | The company shares data with a variety of third parties (e.g., advertisers, marketing partners) without clear or detailed disclosure on how it’s used. | The company shares data with trusted third parties but offers clear user controls or transparency on who receives the data and for what purpose. | The company shares minimal data with third parties and only for essential service-related reasons (e.g., payment processing, customer support). |
| User Control over Data | Users have no control over their data once collected, with no ability to opt out of any data collection or have their data deleted. | Users have little to no control over their data, with no meaningful options to opt out of tracking, prevent data collection, or request deletion. | Users have minimal control, with only basic privacy settings that don’t allow for full data management, such as opting out of tracking or deleting accounts. | Users have control over some aspects of their data but face limited options to prevent collection or request deletion of certain types of information. | Users have full control over their data, including easy-to-access settings for opting out of non-essential data collection and the ability to request data deletion. |
| Retention and Security of Data | The company stores data indefinitely, has poor or questionable security practices, and may expose user data to significant risks such as breaches or unauthorized access. | The company retains data indefinitely without offering users control over deletion, and security measures are weak or not fully disclosed. | The company retains data for extended periods without clear user control. Security practices are adequate but may expose data to unnecessary risks. | The company retains data for a reasonable period but lacks granular control for users to manage how long their data is stored. Security measures are solid but may lack some transparency. | The company retains data for only as long as necessary, with clear policies on data retention and deletion. Strong security measures are in place to protect user data. |
| Monetization of Data | The company sells or exploits user data with no restrictions, and users have no way to prevent or control this, exposing them to extensive privacy risks. | The company heavily monetizes user data, including through third-party advertising, with minimal transparency or user control over the extent of the monetization. | The company uses user data for advertising purposes within the service and may monetize data through partnerships but offers some transparency or user controls. | The company may use data for in-service personalization but does not sell or extensively share data with advertisers or other third parties for profit. | The company does not monetize user data beyond its service and does not share it with advertisers or data brokers. |
Player Rights:
Does it respect user rights such as the right to refunds, ownership of in-game content, and data privacy?
- Why It’s Important: A fair EULA should respect the rights of the players, particularly regarding ownership of in-game content, refunds, and data privacy. Users invest both time and money in games, and their ability to control their in-game assets, request refunds, or ensure their data is protected is essential for a positive user experience.
- Potential Harm: Without respect for player rights, users might lose access to their in-game purchases, such as characters, skins, or virtual currency, without compensation. Companies could impose bans or revoke access to content without allowing users a fair appeal process. Moreover, restrictive EULAs may prevent users from requesting refunds or limit their control over their personal data. In extreme cases, users may be exploited through unfair practices such as refusing to delete personal data or enforcing draconian penalties for minor infractions.
- Scoring:
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of Purchased Content | The EULA explicitly states that all purchased content is only licensed and can be revoked at any time without compensation. Users have no real ownership or control over their purchases, which can be harmful as they may lose access unexpectedly. | Users are granted limited ownership but cannot transfer or resell the content. There are significant restrictions, meaning users have some rights but not full control. | Users have partial ownership, such as the ability to use the content but no resale rights. While not fully aggressive, the terms still limit the user’s flexibility. | Users have most ownership rights, with restrictions like reselling to third parties but still retaining long-term access to their purchases. Some limitations exist, but they aren’t excessively harmful. | The EULA grants full ownership over in-game purchases, including rights to resell, trade, or transfer content, providing maximum benefit to the user. There are minimal restrictions. |
| Refunds and Cancellation Rights | The EULA offers no refund policy or allows extremely restrictive terms (e.g., refunds only in rare circumstances). Users have no recourse if they are unsatisfied, making this highly aggressive. | Refunds are available, but only in limited cases such as product defects or technical issues. It’s difficult for users to get their money back under normal conditions. | The EULA provides some refund options, such as within a short window (e.g., 7 days), but may involve restrictions like restocking fees or conditions that make refunds less accessible. | The EULA offers a reasonable refund policy, such as allowing refunds for any reason within a longer period (e.g., 14-30 days), with clear steps for users to follow. It is generally user-friendly, but with some conditions. | Users are entitled to no-questions-asked refunds, with a straightforward process for cancellation. Refunds are easily accessible, even for digital products, making it highly beneficial for users. |
| Right to Play | The EULA states that access to content or services can be revoked at any time, often without notice, giving users no guarantee of continued play. This is highly harmful, as users may lose access with no compensation. | The right to play is tied to server availability or online status, and while access can be limited or revoked, some protections may exist for short periods of downtime. However, long-term guarantees are lacking. | Users have conditional access, such as continued play as long as servers are operational, but may still lose access if the game is discontinued or moved to another platform. Some provisions may exist for offline access. | The EULA guarantees access to the game or purchased content for a reasonable time, even in the case of server issues. Users can play offline, but there may be some limitations based on service changes. | Users are guaranteed long-term access to the content they’ve purchased, including both online and offline modes, ensuring they can continue to use it even if the game or service is discontinued. This is highly beneficial for users. |
| Fair Use and Modding Rights | The EULA prohibits all modding or fair use of the game content, and any attempts to create user-generated content (UGC) are strictly forbidden. This stifles user creativity and is highly aggressive. | Modding is allowed in limited circumstances, such as only for non-commercial or single-player use. However, users have little freedom, and restrictions make it hard for community creation to thrive. | The EULA permits some user-generated content or modding, but with significant restrictions (e.g., only for single-player or specific non-competitive environments). | Users are allowed to freely create mods or UGC for most parts of the game, with some reasonable restrictions (e.g., no competitive advantage or cheating). This encourages user creativity but may impose some limits for game balance. | The EULA fully supports fair use and modding, with no significant restrictions, allowing users to modify and create content for both single-player and multiplayer environments. This enhances user experience and creativity. |
| Intellectual Property and User-Generated Content | The company claims full ownership of all UGC, even when created by the user. This is highly aggressive, as users lose any rights over their own creations. | Users retain some rights over their UGC, but the company claims a broad license to use or modify it, often without compensation or acknowledgment. This limits user control over their creations. | Users retain ownership of their UGC, but the company may still have the right to use it for marketing or community purposes. The terms are not overly aggressive but may limit how users can commercialize their content. | The EULA ensures that users maintain control over their UGC, with the company only claiming limited rights (e.g., non-commercial, internal use). Users are free to share or monetize their content externally. | Users have full ownership and control over their UGC, with no restrictions or claims from the company. This gives maximum creative freedom and control to the user, ensuring that they benefit fully from their creations. |
Changes to EULA:
Does it notify users adequately when changes to the EULA are made?
- Why It’s Important: Regular updates to a EULA are common, but users must be properly informed when these changes occur, especially if the modifications could negatively affect their rights or obligations. A clear, upfront notification system ensures that users are not caught off guard by new terms.
- Potential Harm: If a company can change the EULA without adequately informing users, it can introduce terms that are detrimental to the user’s experience. This could include altering how personal data is handled, introducing new fees, or reducing user rights over time. Without proper notification, users might continue using the service without knowing they are now bound by new, potentially harmful terms. This could lead to financial losses, data exploitation, or restricted access to content or services.
- Scoring:
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notification of Changes | Changes to the EULA can be made without any notification to users. Users are expected to regularly check for updates themselves, putting the onus entirely on them, which can lead to significant issues without their knowledge. | Changes are posted on the website or app but without direct communication to users. This means users may still miss important changes unless they frequently monitor the EULA, which is inconvenient and can be harmful. | Users are notified of changes through passive methods (e.g., in-app notifications or banners) but not necessarily in a clear or timely manner. Users may notice changes only after they have already been implemented. | The company provides direct notice of changes through multiple channels (e.g., email, app notifications), giving users clear updates and ensuring they are aware before continuing to use the service. However, the timing of notification may vary. | Users are provided advance notice of changes through multiple, direct communication channels (e.g., email, in-app, SMS), with sufficient time to review and act on the updates before they are applied. This maximizes user awareness. |
| Consent to Changes | Changes to the EULA are made unilaterally by the company, and users are automatically bound by the new terms without any opportunity to consent. This is highly aggressive and harmful to users who may not agree with the changes. | Users are notified of changes, but their continued use of the service is treated as automatic consent, without any formal agreement. This leaves users with little choice and can lead to inadvertent acceptance of harmful terms. | Users are given the option to accept or reject the new terms, but continued use of the service after a certain period automatically implies acceptance, giving users a limited window to act. | Users must explicitly consent to the new terms before they can continue using the service. However, rejecting the terms means losing access without alternatives, which still puts some pressure on users. | Users must provide explicit consent to the new terms, with the option to reject and continue using the service under the previous terms or opt for a refund if they disagree with the changes. This gives full control to users. |
| Impact of Changes | The company can make significant changes that drastically affect user rights (e.g., increased data collection, reduced access) without clearly highlighting these updates. This is highly harmful as it leaves users unaware of major impacts. | Major changes are made, but the company provides minimal highlights, leaving users to sift through the EULA to find how their rights or obligations have changed. The impact can still be harmful, as important updates are easily missed. | Significant changes are highlighted, but users do not have the option to revert to previous terms or opt out without discontinuing service. This forces users into accepting changes even when impactful. | The company highlights all material changes (e.g., pricing, user rights, or privacy) clearly, with some limited options for users to opt out or discontinue service. Users are informed of how the changes impact them directly. | Any material changes that could significantly impact users are clearly communicated, and users are provided a grace period to opt out, cancel the service, or request refunds. The EULA ensures that users are not blindsided by impactful updates. |
| Accessibility of Changes | Changes to the EULA are made in complex legal language, making it difficult for users to understand what has changed. Previous versions of the EULA are not accessible, making it impossible to compare the old and new terms. | Changes are available but written in complex legal terms, and no user-friendly summary or explanation is provided. Users may not easily grasp the implications of the updates. Previous versions are hard to find or not provided. | The updated EULA is presented with some explanation, but it may still include legal jargon that is difficult to understand. Prior versions may be available, but the comparison between old and new terms is not user-friendly. | Changes are presented in clear language, with a summary of the most important updates. The previous version of the EULA is accessible for comparison, but some complex terms may remain. | Changes are presented in plain, easy-to-understand language without legal jargon, and users can easily view the version history of the EULA. A comparison or summary of key changes is available, ensuring full transparency. |
| Opt-out Option | Users have no option to opt out of the changes, and must either accept the new terms or stop using the service entirely, losing access to their account and data without any recourse. This is highly harmful to user rights. | Users can stop using the service if they disagree with the changes, but they are forced to lose access to their accounts, data, and purchases. No ability to retain older terms or receive refunds. | Users can opt out of certain changes but may still lose some functionality or access to specific features of the service. No refunds or compensation are offered, making opting out less attractive. | Users are given a grace period to opt out of the changes or cancel their service with a refund, but may still lose access to certain features. This provides some protection for users who disagree with the new terms. | Users can opt out of the new changes while retaining access to their account, data, and previous terms, or they can request a full refund or cancellation without penalties. This gives full control and choice to the user. |
Liability and Disputes:
Is there a fair and clear process for addressing grievances or resolving disputes?
- Why It’s Important: A fair process for handling disputes and clear liability rules help ensure that users have a way to protect their rights if something goes wrong. Whether it’s a data breach, a ban, or an unfair penalty, users should have a clear path to resolve these issues.
- Potential Harm: Many EULAs include clauses that limit the company’s liability in case of damages or faults in the product, which can leave users without proper compensation for issues like data loss, defective products, or security breaches. Additionally, mandatory arbitration clauses or class action waivers can prevent users from taking disputes to court, forcing them into less favorable conditions to resolve their issues. This limits the legal recourse available to users, and in many cases, arbitration can be biased in favor of the company.
- Scoring:
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3points | 4points | 5points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are liability limitations reasonable or overly restrictive? | Liability disclaimers are extremely broad, absolving the company of any responsibility, even in cases of gross negligence or defective products. The user has little to no legal recourse in any scenario, making this highly aggressive and harmful. | The company disclaims most responsibility, including for product defects and issues caused by negligence. Users are left vulnerable, as there is minimal protection against company actions or failures. | The company provides some limited protection but still disclaims most liability for major issues, leaving the user to bear most risks. The terms may offer limited legal recourse, but users still have minimal rights. | The company provides reasonable limitations on liability but maintains some accountability for product defects or service issues. Users are not left completely vulnerable and have some legal recourse. | Liability limitations are fair and balanced, ensuring the company is held accountable for significant issues like negligence, product defects, and service failures. Users are protected in major scenarios and have clear paths for legal recourse. |
| Is there a cap on the company’s liability, and is it reasonable? | The company’s liability is capped at a trivial amount (e.g., under $10), regardless of the severity of the issue. This offers minimal protection to the user, leaving them with no meaningful compensation. | The liability cap is very low, offering minimal compensation for damages or losses, even in significant cases. The user is left with little recourse in the event of serious problems. | The liability cap is somewhat low (e.g., the cost of the service/product), offering limited compensation. It may be reasonable for small issues but insufficient for larger problems. | The liability cap is moderately reasonable, covering significant damages or losses, but may still be somewhat limited in extreme cases. Users receive decent protection but not total compensation. | The liability cap is fair and proportionate, ensuring users are compensated based on their actual losses or damages. The cap is reasonable, especially in cases of negligence or product failure. |
| Does the EULA require arbitration or provide court access? | Mandatory arbitration is required for all disputes, and users have no option to take legal action in court. The terms severely limit the user’s ability to resolve disputes fairly. | Arbitration is required, and court access is blocked, but some transparency is provided regarding the process. Users still face significant hurdles in resolving disputes. | Arbitration is mandatory but includes clear rules and protections for users. However, court access remains restricted, limiting broader legal recourse. | Arbitration is an option, but users may opt for court access in specific cases, such as larger claims. The arbitration process is user-friendly, and the user is not restricted entirely. | Users are given the choice between arbitration and court access, with clear explanations of the benefits and limitations of each option. This provides maximum legal flexibility for the user. |
| Is there a clear process for dispute resolution? | There is no clear process for dispute resolution, and users are left without guidance on how to address grievances. This makes it extremely difficult for users to resolve issues. | The dispute resolution process is vague, and users are given minimal information on how to proceed. The lack of clarity makes it challenging for users to understand their rights or how to act. | The dispute resolution process is outlined, but the details are complex or difficult for a typical user to follow. Some steps are clear, but overall the process remains hard to navigate without legal assistance. | The dispute resolution process is described in detail, with clear steps for users to follow. While some legal terminology may remain, the process is generally transparent and understandable. | The dispute resolution process is thoroughly outlined with clear, user-friendly instructions, timelines, and contact points. Users are given full transparency on how to resolve disputes without legal expertise. |
| Is class-action participation allowed? | Class actions are strictly prohibited, and users are forced to pursue disputes on an individual basis, severely limiting their ability to take collective legal action. This is highly restrictive and harmful to user rights. | Class actions are waived, and users must resolve disputes individually, but there are some alternatives, such as small claims court. Users still face significant obstacles to collective action. | Class actions are waived, but users have some options for group dispute resolution, such as joining arbitration groups. The EULA provides limited collective recourse. | Class actions are restricted, but the EULA allows reasonable alternatives for group disputes, such as opt-in group arbitration. This provides moderate collective protection. | Class-action participation is fully allowed, enabling users to band together for collective legal action. This maximizes user protection and recourse for widespread issues. |
In summary, these categories determine the balance of power between the user and the company. EULAs that score poorly on these points often reflect an imbalance where the user’s rights, privacy, and control over their content are reduced while maximizing the company’s protections against liability and litigation.
Not all categories carry the same weight or level of importance. We prioritize Data Exploitation and Privacy Risks and Player Rights more heavily than the others. As a result, these categories have double the impact on the overall score compared to the other criteria.
Latest Game EULA Evaluations
