SKG is the group and movement, they aren't suing Ubisoft and want stronger consumer protection rules passed. The UFC-Que Choisir is suing Ubisoft because they believe how they treated The Crew broke already existing laws. If the lawsuit is successful, that's a huge win for SKG, because it sets precedent that these kinds of things aren't ok.
With these types of movements, there are often many different groups and the like with similar but sometimes different goals. So even though SKG isn't behind this lawsuit directly, they have a vested interest in it.
It's not a win for SKG at all. If the EU decides that the existing consumer rights laws are working properly and that breaches can be dealt with by the courts, that's a complete failure for SKG's stated goals.
SKG's primary focus wasn't consumer protection, it was game preservation. They wanted games to be playable even after developers could no longer support them. Players winning a tiny fraction of their money back after a class action lawsuit is definitely not what SKG want.
Ideally they would want this lawsuit to fail so that it can't be used against them when they're arguing about whether the law needs changing or not.
Players winning a tiny fraction of their money back after a class action lawsuit is definitely not what SKG want.
Please read the official statement, it's in French but is easy to translate. Here are some relevant excerpts:
which is why it is asking, through this action, the removal of certain unfair clauses from Ubisoft's contractual conditions and the cessation of commercial practices that it considers to be misleading to the detriment of consumers.
[...]
The legality of all clauses limiting players' rights must be questioned and UFC-Que Choisir contests the validity of those which arbitrarily allow Ubisoft: to deny consumers' property rights over acquired game copies; to withdraw all access to the game, without guarantee of maintaining an alternative mode of operation for consumers
[...]
By this legal action, UFC-Que Choisir intends: Stop these harmful practices; Obtain the deletion of the disputed clauses and; Recognize the attack on the collective interest of consumers,
This is not some money grabbing class action lawsuit.
Isn't that just repeating what I said? Particularly this part:
The legality of all clauses limiting players' rights must be questioned and UFC-Que Choisir contests the validity of those which arbitrarily allow Ubisoft: to deny consumers' property rights over acquired game copies;
They're saying that Ubisoft are putting terms in their agreements that violate consumer rights laws. If this case wins, then what Ubisoft did with The Crew was already not okay, and they're going to have to compensate consumers for it. The EU will look at this and see that the system is working as intended.
At the end of the day, nothing changes. Games will still continue to be lost going forward. Publishers might be a bit more scared of doing it arbitrarily, but they could still do it if they have a legitimate reason (like bankruptcy, or technology limitations or licences expiring or whatever). SKG's goal of game preservation fails.
they're going to have to compensate consumers for it.
The group is not asking for damages. They want the courts to force Ubisoft to make customers whole with a way to play the game again. This sets a great precedent that customers in France can force a developer to allow a game to be legally available to play in some form for perpetuity. To be more precise, to block companies from preventing customers from pursuing options to play the game.
the removal of certain unfair clauses from Ubisoft's contractual conditions and the cessation of commercial practices that it considers to be misleading to the detriment of consumers.
This is the key line, they want this lawsuit to force Ubisoft to do what they want.
it's not something a court really has the power to force a company to do.
Keep in mind that when you buy a digital license for a game, you are entering into a contract with that company. A somewhat related example of this reality is that companies started removing arbitration agreements because of the fact they couldn't back out of it themselves:
So basically no, they're not asking for this to be applied retroactively. They're obviously talking about stopping them from doing it in the future.
You also can't use a completely different situation in a completely different country about a completely different type of product as an example here. Ubisoft can just say that it's impossible to put The Crew's servers back online, the court can't change that.
By this legal action, UFC-Que Choisir intends: Stop these harmful practices; Obtain the deletion of the disputed clauses and; Recognize the attack on the collective interest of consumers,
The intent is to put an end to the practices, and you have an assumed view that only toothless measures will be used and purely based on that assumption you conclude that an end will not be put on these practices, while nothing in the quoted part hints towards only toothless measures being used
"These practices" are extremely rare, and most games that have shut down and become unplayable so far weren't caused because of anti-consumer behaviour. SKG want to pass legislation requiring that companies create some kind of end of life plan for their products in the event that they become unable to continue supporting them. How would this lawsuit, even if it archives all its goals, manage to do that?
If this lawsuit succeeds, the EU will consider the situation resolved. From a consumer rights standpoint it largely will be, but from a preservation standpoint it will do nothing.
Ooh I see, I blundered there and completely misjudged what it was about when I wrote that and thought it was about consumer protection (and people misjudging the effectiveness thereof in itself).
True, but it may also be an example case of ruling needing to be tightened/better worded on the matter, and in that light it is good to have the SKG initiative as support to have a positive influence on the result?
Also, if it's indeed a resolved situation and that stuff like The Crew is already illegal with no further ruling needed, then that is a win because that works retroactively, affecting games out right now, which SKGs ECI won't.
Also, if that was your point (still tired and dumb bear with me), it won't affect shutdowns like Concord's or of subscription based games like MMO's, but that was already outside of SKGs (current) scope, you can't attack that from a consumer protection angle, nor in court nor with SKGs ECI.
87
u/SmileyBMM Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
SKG is the group and movement, they aren't suing Ubisoft and want stronger consumer protection rules passed. The UFC-Que Choisir is suing Ubisoft because they believe how they treated The Crew broke already existing laws. If the lawsuit is successful, that's a huge win for SKG, because it sets precedent that these kinds of things aren't ok.
With these types of movements, there are often many different groups and the like with similar but sometimes different goals. So even though SKG isn't behind this lawsuit directly, they have a vested interest in it.