Menu
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Language | 2 | 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**. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 3 | Users have minimal control, with only basic privacy settings that dont allow for full data management, such as opting out of tracking or deleting accounts. |
| 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 | 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 | 3 | 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 users flexibility. |
| Refunds and Cancellation Rights | 2 | 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. |
| 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 | 2 | 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. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 3 | 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. |
| 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? | 2 | 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. |
| 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? | 4 | 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. |
| Is class-action participation allowed? | 2 | 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. |
