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 | 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 | 4 | The company shares data with trusted third parties but offers clear user controls or transparency on who receives the data and for what purpose. |
| 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 | 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 | 4 | The EULA offers a **reasonable refund policy**, such as allowing refunds for any reason within a longer period (e.g., 14-30 days), with clear steps for users to follow. It is generally user-friendly, but with some 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 | 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 | 4 | The company highlights all **material changes** (e.g., pricing, user rights, or privacy) clearly, with some limited options for users to opt out or discontinue service. Users are informed of how the changes impact them directly. |
| 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. |
