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 | 3 | 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. |
| 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 | 3 | Some key terms are explained, and **limited examples** are provided, but the majority of the EULA assumes users understand the legal concepts being used. |
| 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 | 2 | 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. |
| 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 | 4 | Users have control over some aspects of their data but face limited options to prevent collection or request deletion of certain types of information. |
| 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 | 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 | 4 | 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. |
| 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 | 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 | 4 | 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. |
| 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 | 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? | 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? | 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? | 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. |
