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 | 2 | The EULA is relatively long, with **some unnecessary information** that feels like filler. It’s difficult for users to distinguish the critical parts from the less relevant sections. |
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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? | 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? | 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. |