Menu
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Language | 3 | 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. |
| 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 | 4 | 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. |
| 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 | 1 | 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. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Data Collection | 4 | The company collects some additional data (e.g., usage metrics, location) but offers clear opt-out mechanisms for non-essential data collection. |
| Data Sharing with Third Parties | 2 | The company shares data with numerous third parties, including those involved in behavioral advertising, with minimal transparency or user control. |
| 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 | 3 | The company retains data for extended periods without clear user control. Security practices are adequate but may expose data to unnecessary risks. |
| Monetization of Data | 1 | 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. |
| 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 | 4 | 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. |
| 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 | 4 | 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. |
| Consent to Changes | 2 | 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. |
| Impact of Changes | 3 | 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. |
| 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 | 1 | 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. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Are liability limitations reasonable or overly restrictive? | 2 | 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. |
| Is there a cap on the company’s liability, and is it reasonable? | 1 | 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. |
| Does the EULA require arbitration or provide court access? | 4 | 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. |
| Is there a clear process for dispute resolution? | 3 | 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. |
| 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. |
