Menu
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Language | 4 | 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. |
| Text Structure and Formatting | 4 | 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. |
| Length and Conciseness | 3 | 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. |
| User-Friendly Explanations and Examples | 2 | 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. |
| User-Friendly Explanations and Examples | 2 | 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. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Data Collection | 3 | The company collects significant personal data beyond what is strictly necessary (e.g., detailed behavioral tracking, device information) with limited opt-out options. |
| Data Sharing with Third Parties | 3 | 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. |
| User Control over Data | 2 | Users have little to no control over their data, with no meaningful options to opt out of tracking, prevent data collection, or request deletion. |
| Retention and Security of Data | 2 | The company retains data indefinitely without offering users control over deletion, and security measures are weak or not fully disclosed. |
| Monetization of Data | 2 | The company heavily monetizes user data, including through third-party advertising, with minimal transparency or user control over the extent of the monetization. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of Purchased Content | 2 | 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. |
| Refunds and Cancellation Rights | 3 | 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. |
| Right to Play | 3 | 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. |
| Fair Use and Modding Rights | 3 | The EULA permits **some user-generated content** or modding, but with significant restrictions (e.g., only for single-player or specific non-competitive environments). |
| Intellectual Property and User-Generated Content | 1 | 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. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Notification of Changes | 3 | 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. |
| Consent to Changes | 3 | 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. |
| Impact of Changes | 2 | 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. |
| Accessibility of Changes | 2 | 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. |
| Opt-out Option | 2 | 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. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Are liability limitations reasonable or overly restrictive? | 3 | 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. |
| Is there a cap on the company’s liability, and is it reasonable? | 3 | 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. |
| Does the EULA require arbitration or provide court access? | 2 | Arbitration is required, and **court access is blocked**, but some transparency is provided regarding the process. Users still face **significant hurdles** in resolving disputes. |
| Is there a clear process for dispute resolution? | 2 | 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. |
| Is class-action participation allowed? | 1 | **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. |
