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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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? | 3 | The dispute resolution process is **outlined**, but the details are complex or difficult for a typical user to follow. Some steps are clear, but overall the process remains **hard to navigate** without legal assistance. |
| 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. |
