Menu
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 4 | The company provides **direct notice of changes** through multiple channels (e.g., email, app notifications), giving users clear updates and ensuring they are aware before continuing to use the service. However, the timing of notification may vary. |
| 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 | 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? | 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? | 3 | Arbitration is mandatory but includes **clear rules and protections** for users. However, court access remains restricted, limiting broader legal recourse. |
| Is there a clear process for dispute resolution? | 4 | The dispute resolution process is described in **detail**, with clear steps for users to follow. While some legal terminology may remain, the process is **generally transparent** and understandable. |
| 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. |
