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 | 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 | 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 | 2 | The company retains data indefinitely without offering users control over deletion, and security measures are weak or not fully disclosed. |
Monetization of Data | 3 | The company uses user data for advertising purposes within the service and may monetize data through partnerships but offers some transparency or user controls. |
Criteria | Score | Detail |
---|---|---|
Ownership of Purchased Content | 2 | Users are granted **limited ownership** but cannot transfer or resell the content. There are significant restrictions, meaning users have some rights but not full control. |
Refunds and Cancellation Rights | 1 | The EULA offers **no refund policy** or allows extremely restrictive terms (e.g., refunds only in rare circumstances). Users have no recourse if they are unsatisfied, making this highly aggressive. |
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 | 1 | Changes to the EULA can be made **without any notification** to users. Users are expected to regularly check for updates themselves, putting the onus entirely on them, which can lead to significant issues without their knowledge. |
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 | 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 | 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 | 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? | 1 | **Mandatory arbitration** is required for all disputes, and users have **no option** to take legal action in court. The terms severely limit the user’s ability to resolve disputes fairly. |
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. |