Menu
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Language | 3 | The language is generally clear but **certain sections** may contain jargon or vague terms, making it difficult for users to fully grasp some of their rights. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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? | 2 | The company disclaims most responsibility, including for product defects and issues caused by negligence. Users are **left vulnerable**, as there is minimal protection against company actions or failures. |
| 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? | 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. |
