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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2 | The company retains data indefinitely without offering users control over deletion, and security measures are weak or not fully disclosed. |
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 | 1 | The EULA explicitly states that all purchased content is **only licensed** and can be revoked at any time without compensation. Users have no real ownership or control over their purchases, which can be harmful as they may lose access unexpectedly. |
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 | 2 | The right to play is tied to server availability or online status, and while access can be **limited or revoked**, some protections may exist for short periods of downtime. However, long-term guarantees are lacking. |
Fair Use and Modding Rights | 1 | The EULA **prohibits all modding or fair use** of the game content, and any attempts to create user-generated content (UGC) are strictly forbidden. This stifles user creativity and is highly aggressive. |
Intellectual Property and User-Generated Content | 2 | Users retain **some rights** over their UGC, but the company claims a **broad license** to use or modify it, often without compensation or acknowledgment. This limits user control over their 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 | 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 | 1 | Changes to the EULA are made in **complex legal language**, making it difficult for users to understand what has changed. Previous versions of the EULA are not accessible, making it impossible to compare the old and new terms. |
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? | 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? | 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. |