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 | 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 | 3 | A **partial summary** is provided, highlighting some key terms, but critical sections are left out, leaving users with an incomplete understanding. |
| Criteria | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Data Collection | 2 | The company collects excessive data (e.g., biometric data, browsing history) or tracks user activities across platforms without clear consent or the ability to opt out. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 3 | Users have **conditional access**, such as continued play as long as servers are operational, but may still lose access if the game is discontinued or moved to another platform. Some provisions may exist for offline access. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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? | 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? | 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? | 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. |
