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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2 | 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. |
| 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 | 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 | 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? | 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. |
