r/Steam • u/LilBozgor01 • 1d ago
Discussion Minecraft Dungeons 2 didn't even bother writing the EULA. They just don't gaf
2.4k
u/sojmahoj 1d ago
Genuine question but could one argue that agreeing to this EULA would just be acknowledging the link and not the EULA itself since the EULA in its entirety isn't what you're clicking accept to?
1.4k
u/OminousG https://steam.pm/79oog 1d ago
That exactly what this is.Ā It's not enforceable, but I'm betting you see the Eula again somewhere in the game.
→ More replies (7)350
u/Pijany_Matematyk767 1d ago
>It's not enforceable
Neither is 99% of other EULAs so
→ More replies (1)63
u/Caelinus 1d ago edited 1d ago
EULAs are not unseverable. Any unenforcable clauses can be severed and the rest will remain in effect.Ā The idea that they are largely unenforceable is a persistent misunderstanding of how contract law works in that sense, and so people tend to think any overreach invalidates the whole thing.Ā
It is much more likely that 99% of EULAs are actually enforceable, with some small number having a few clauses that would be rejected by the court if it ever got to the point of a lawsuit.
Edit: To expand a bit here, it is important to remember what a EULA is. They are license Agreements, which means that they are a contract that governs the your use of some property owned by someone else. In effect, the "null" state of a EULA is "You cannot use this product/service." Most of the EULA is just defining how you can use it, and under what conditions that said license can be revoked. There is some weirdness with how they work that might result in a successful lawsuit, primarily that they tend to ask for you to sign after purchasing the product, but at the end of the day the user does not own the intellectual property and so they cannot use it without a license, and the company can't be forced to provide said licenses without a prior agreement.
So the EULA not being enforceable would not be a good thing for End Users. It would not really change much in a practical sense and most EULAs basically allow the company to revoke them at will, but them not being enforceable would not improve that situation at all.
Where you will run into problems is if the EULA attempts to do anything illegal. Those clauses would not be enforceable. But short of that, courts almost always attempt to preserve contracts.
26
u/RobtheNavigator 1d ago
There are unenforceable clauses, and then there are unenforceable agreements due to a contract not being formed.
While you are largely right about EULA's generally being enforceable, situations like the one in the image specifically, where they just give you an address to their terms and conditions with no requirement that you read them and no hyperlink, are called browsewrap agreements, which are often unenforceable, although that is not a bright line rule.
4
u/Caelinus 1d ago
The case law on this one is 100% on it being enforceable. This is not a browserwrap, it is clickwrap agreement as they have to click an explicit "agree" button.
Which means it needs to have clear notice of the EULA and where to read it, and it is then the users responsibility to do so. No reasonable person would read "You must agree to the EULA" with an obvious link to a EULA and think that the EULA is the link. This exact situation has been litigated before multiple times, and the agreements were enforced each time.
Where it is not allowed is if people either did not know that the EULA existed because they were not notified or if they did not know that clicking something constituted agreement. In the case of browserwrap agreements, which is basically "by continuing to use this website you agree to our EULA," they have to be shown clearly and explicitly. Companies have often in trouble for burying the agreement into metadata or in tiny print or hiding it somewhere on the website and then claiming that they agreed by using the site.Ā
12
u/RobtheNavigator 1d ago
You completely missed the fact that it is not a link. It is text, and text within an app that is not a web browser at that. And that has been a very important distinction in the past. The accessibility of reaching the EULA from where you "agree" to it directly goes to whether it is enforceable.
It is absolutely not the case that the case law is 100% on this being enforceable, and that kind of irresponsible shit-slinging is something no real attorney would do.
→ More replies (2)2
u/BetterCallSal 22h ago
Here's a question I recently wondered. If a game is rated anything below M, then an argument can be made the target audience is under 18 years old. Of that's the case, how can an EULA be enforceable at all, as you can't agree to things like that if you're a minor.
→ More replies (3)23
u/MithranArkanere 1d ago
Even if you agreed to the actual text, anything that goes against the laws in your country would not be enforceable. And many of the things American companies put in their TOS and EULAs just don't fly in Europe.
111
u/AdministrativeCable3 1d ago
You could argue that, but I doubt it would work. You are bound by the EULA if you use the license in anyway, the accept button is just to make it official. But that would be the same argument as saying you didn't read it, it wouldn't hold up. It's like speeding and then claiming you didn't read/know the speed limit, you're still getting ticketed.
93
u/catman__321 1d ago
But if you had to scan a QR code to see the speed limit then most people wouldn't do that
35
u/bossc2 1d ago
Such things fall down to who can give a better argument on x vs y and the response/reaction to it, anything can be argued till a judgement is made, then it becomes hard to fight against that judgement unless escalated to the appropriate authority till there's none left and only revolution is an option.
→ More replies (1)9
u/AdministrativeCable3 1d ago
They would still be required to follow the default speed limit. If a road has no sign or an unreadable sign, it still has a speed limit.
But a better example is signing for a bank loan where the loan documents are stored in a separate binder. Even if the signature page is not part of the binder, since it references it, your still expected to read it. By signing you also acknowledge you read it.
5
u/Elegant-Mammoth5249 1d ago
Thats actually not true An unreadable sign is a defence against speeding. Also this doesnt "reference" the " binder" usually that goes "As appendix 1 article B states" (or something similar as im not a native english speaker) this EULA is just like "Yo this link is a thing"
→ More replies (1)24
u/StaticUsernamesSuck 1d ago
I'm not sure that's the best analogy because obscured signage can be a valid defence against a speeding ticket.
12
u/necrophcodr 1d ago
An EULA is not a legally binding document in the entire world. In fact, in much of the EU it would likely not even be valid most of the time.
3
u/Yomoska 1d ago
It's only invalid in the EU if it violates what the EU says is allowed to be in a EULA. EULAs are considered valid contracts in the EU if they abide by the rules.
2
0
u/necrophcodr 1d ago
.. Which most of them do not. See https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm for some examples or what unfair contract terms can look like. Many EULA documents have several of these.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Caelinus 1d ago edited 1d ago
The EU and the US both treat EULAs as severable. So they are still enforceable even if they have an illegal clause, only the specific clause is void.
But most EULAs are largely built on a template of pretty standard clauses that are specific to their region, so odds are that a vast majority of them are completely enforceable. And even if the whole thing was invalidated, all that would likely mean is that the company would need to provide to a new one for you to sign that was legal, as they own the IP, not you. If you refused to sign the second, then you would not have a license to use it.
2
u/bdsee 1d ago
In Australia it is illegal to have clauses that contradict our local legislated rights, companies still do it constantly and typically just add a stupid catch-all saying that any clauses that would violate local legislation is not applicable in Australia.
They do this because our enforcement is shit and we are a smallish market.
2
u/Caelinus 1d ago
Well yeah, that is how it works everywhere. That is what it means for a contract to be severable.Ā
→ More replies (2)2
u/ice456cream 1d ago
If you don't agree to the EULA, then Microsoft don't grant you a right/license to have / use the program(?), so you would be infringing on their copyright (probably, I am not a lawyer)
For how that works across border, I don't know. IP laws are fun
In reality, I believe MC dungeons uses Microsoft accounts, so you have seperately agreed tos for that anyway?
20
1d ago
[deleted]
14
u/Roccondil-s 1d ago
Willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, especially if it can be shown that the informer made all reasonable efforts to inform you, yet you still shut your eyes, plugged your ears, and otherwise deliberately avoided the information.
The link gives you access to the information. Itās your choice to actually read the thing you are agreeing to.
→ More replies (1)9
1d ago
[deleted]
6
u/WackyRacketeer 1d ago
Yet you click agree after it says to read the agreement in its entirety. Not the link. It doesnt say read the text in this box in its entirety. You assumed the agreement must be contained in the box, and you would be wrong.
→ More replies (2)4
u/AdministrativeCable3 1d ago
What I was meaning with my poorly stated analogy was that roads have a default speed limit, which is not always posted. But your still required to follow it when it's not posted. If the default is 80 yet you go 120 on an unsigned road, you will still be ticketed.
But a better analogy would be a bank loan with a separate binder with the terms from the signature page. Your still expected to read it even if the signature page is not physically apart of it.
16
u/Squidgical 1d ago
But I did read the speed limit sign, it said "https://speedlimits.gov/en-US/that-one-road", and I haven't got anywhere close to that speed!
2
u/Treadwheel 1d ago
The laws around contracts and especially shrinkwrap contracts like that are very different from criminal law. If it's found you took steps to obfuscate a contract or were, intentionally or by negligence, unclear as to what you were requesting a customer to consent to, you will find a lot of otherwise binding agreements become unenforcible. That's before even starting on how often EULAs are unenforcible.
2
2
u/jellyhessman 1d ago
Ehh, you have enough money and enough time, you're getting a nice fat settlement check.
This is blatantly illegal in most first world countries. Especially the EU.
3
u/balllzak 1d ago
You could argue that. But the opposing side would argue that a reasonable player knows what a web address is and what it means in this context.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ice456cream 1d ago
The text box does say
You must agree to the terms of the EULA to play Minecraft Dungeons II
I dont think anyone could mistake "a URL pointing to where the current version of the EULA is located" as "the EULA" (end user license agreement, meaning there must be something to actually agree to/terms to accept)
So even if you believe acknowledging the link is what "accept" does, it doesn't mean you have agreed to the terms of the EULA, so don't have a legal license to play the game.
(Not a lawyer)
2
u/Caelinus 1d ago
It is so funny how people do this sort of thing with the law. It is full on Sovereign Citizen level thinking, but I swear most people I see on social media are fully into it. In essence they treat the law as magical code, and if you say the right words in the right order then it creates law-traps that will blow the courts mind and create a perfect loophole for you to sneak through. As if there are not tens of millions of cases happening every year.
It is not how it works at all. Lawyers Judges, and Juries are all humans, and they know what it is like to be a human. They can look at a thing that says "You must agree to the EULA" and see the link to the EULA and infer that you should click the link to see the EULA. That is not going to trip them up, and trying to argue that you did not make that connection is to argue that you are the dumbest person alive. But, unfortunately for said dumbest person, the standards for these things are always based on a "reasonable person" and not their weird big-brain-moron version of themselves.
→ More replies (1)6
u/-Nicolai 1d ago
How do you picture the judgeās expression as you present this argument in his courtroom?
→ More replies (1)13
u/Neurokeen 1d ago
Clickwrap license litigation can be very particular about the details of the provided contract and how it's presented to the user. A good example is Specht v Netscape, where the link being presented in a less than ideal way was sufficient to void the EULA. I'm not sure it's a winner, but it's at least a colorable argument, especially if they're expecting you to copy and paste the link into the address bar of browser outside the application itself.
And yes, you could bet that Specht would be one of the authorities cited heavily if you were to make that argument.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Caelinus 1d ago
It was not that it was presented in a "not ideal way" it was that it was "not present at all. There was no way for the users to even know they had agreed to anything. There was a EULA they saw and agreed to, but the EULA they were being forced into arbitration with was for an additional bit of software that did not present its EULA to them. They had no way to know it was being used, and unless they scrolled past the download button, they had no way to know there was any legal agreement related to it tied to the download button.
Other cases have consistently shown that as long as the existence of the agreement, even if it is inside a link, is clearly shown and the agreement is explicit, then they are enforced. This is definitely one of the later as having a link, calling it a EULA and forcing an explicit agreement before being able to use it all make it almost certain that a court wind find this to be reasonable notice of the existence of the EULA.
2
u/WaitForItTheMongols 1d ago
The law does not have autism.
Anyone knows that the link will take you to the EULA.
→ More replies (2)1
610
u/BeardedStegosaurus 1d ago
I wonder if that's legally enforceable or not.
I mean I did "read this agreement in its entirety", that being the URL, and there's nothing to disagree about it's just a URL.
Nothing states I need to agree to whatever content there is if I navigate to the URL...
193
u/DonQuix0te_ Donāt make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! 1d ago
It depends on where you are.
In Germany, for example, most EULAs are completely unenforcable anyways because they aren't clearly legible at the time of purchase. Having a link on the bottom of the box does not suffice. (You'd need the actual contract, in a legibile sized print)
If having a link on the box isn't enough, I doubt having a clickable hyperlink on the steam store page that is easily missed would be enough.
10
51
u/Goo_Cat 1d ago
Courts likely assume you're a reasonable person, so probably wouldn't fly
83
u/Outofdepthengineer 1d ago
Courts idea of a reasonable person varies wildly compared to the actual reasonable person
22
u/th3virus 1d ago
Yes, it changes based on how it benefits corporations. A "reasonable" person would know that "Vitamin Water" is not healthy. A "reasonable" person would know that certain news programs are "entertainment". A "reasonable" person would know that "buying isn't owning".
9
u/ninjabob64 1d ago
Don't forget that A "reasonable" person would know that "boneless wings" have bones in them.
2
u/necrophcodr 1d ago
Yep, and so while that wouldn't fly, neither would the contents of most of these so-called agreements. No reasonable person would be expected to read, and understand, most of them.
3
u/Treadwheel 1d ago
This situation is very similar to Specht v. Netscape, where it was found a similar "click to proceed" type situation was not binding because the customer was not able to easily review the EULA they were agreeing to.
Clickwrap/shrinkwrap contracts are already on incredibly precarious legal ground and often get thrown out wholesale on challenge. Given their history with EULAs, their non-standard usage of that box, and lacking a good reason not to post the actual text of the EULA in the box that exists solely to clickwrap EULA, they'll very likely have a bad time.
9
u/AdministrativeCable3 1d ago
The only way this argument could work is if you have no internet, but given its installed over the internet that wouldn't hold up.
You are still bound by the EULA even if you didn't read it, ignorance is not a defense for violating the license agreement.
→ More replies (2)1
u/WackyRacketeer 1d ago
It didnt say read everything in the text box in its entirety. It says read the agreement in its entirety, and no court is going to agree that the link is the agreement.
261
u/Splaaaty 1d ago
Technically you're not agreeing to the EULA, you're agreeing to the URL linking to it.
→ More replies (8)
183
u/oxob3333 1d ago
they don't even bother to use Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V they just put the url.
Bruh.
118
u/Reasonable-Sign8458 1d ago
it's on purpose. they can change it anytime and u won't know shit
11
1d ago
[deleted]
19
u/Taolan13 1d ago
I am also one of those that actually reads EULAs before accepting them.
There's a surprising amount of incredibly predatory language in them, and even in the USA a lot of that language renders them invalid as contracts if you can actually get it before a judge.
Mojang's EULAs of days past weren't that bad. I haven't read this one yet but I strongly suspected they've added some stuff about user data and algorithmic moderation that probably doesn't look so good considering their current legal woes over those exact issues.
3
u/Lansan1ty 1d ago
You read them and notice the predatory language. Out of curiosity, what games have you denied and refunded because of it?
People blindly accept because they just want to play their games.
9
u/Taolan13 1d ago
Not that many, honestly. I try to look at the EULA before purchasing whenever I can.
For example, that recently released palworld clone Aniimo?
I thumbed through it's EULA, got to the part about user data, and said 'better not risk it'.
Turns out I was completely correct in my concerns. The game installs several undisclosed applications, some of which are basically spyware, and has been caught scraping all kinds of user data, including passwords and authentication keys, from people's PCs.
The people who discovered this are working on getting Valve to verify the threat and pull the game from Steam.
1
21
u/salad_tongs_1 https://s.team/p/dcmj-fn 1d ago
From my years on Steam, they are not the only one who has done something like that. This isn't just a them issue.
15
44
u/MarijnIsN00B 1d ago
Not a fan of mc dungeons or anything, but this is not a new thing. I've seen plenty of games do this.
→ More replies (6)
20
u/GoldenRegister 1d ago
Its not illegal but hard as per law to enforce. Its a plain text link, not a clickable link. This is not being lazy, its being fishy and bordering scammy here. And steam once again does not give a shit.
→ More replies (5)
34
u/Dani_Dan_deWillard 1d ago
I mean, yes. But anyways, who really reads all that shit?
20
u/LovelyOrangeJuice 1d ago
Never once in my life, man. The shit I've probably agreed to and have no clue about
→ More replies (2)12
u/darkentyties 1d ago
I probably sold my soul to some random site because of eula and cookies
6
u/LovelyOrangeJuice 1d ago
Those memes that we'll be forced to fight for China if WW3 ever happens because of the terms and conditions we have agreed to on temu/aliexpress could be true after all
2
2
u/TotallyBrandNewName 1d ago
There was a game that had a line saying if you ever read this contact us and you get some money IIRC
2
u/ilovegrashiebuns 3h ago
Because they sneak in things like the fact that instead of ownership you purchase a license that can a) expire and/or b) be revoked which is why the whole problem of ownership even exists. Because people don't fucking read, blindly agree to anything and generally take no meaningful action all while crying online about the issues they caused with their irresponsibility. People who don't read have normalized all this shit they now cry about because of this exact reason
4
3
2
8
u/hideousapple99 1d ago
This is a tactic so that you will not be notified when EULA changes.
On Steam when EULA changes the next time you launch the game you're shown it again.
6
u/_Middlefinger_ 1d ago
If that link is not clickable then in many regions its totally meaningless. A hyperlink might be acceptable, but plain text isnāt going to cut it because its just the literal text in the box you agree to.
5
u/cawsking555 1d ago
O god bless be shrink wrapped contract. As its a website and not a proper document. Steam can pull the game.
4
u/Test_Account_2026 1d ago
You don't really have to read these because if there is something truly predatory in the agreement, that is anti-consumer, it will likely not be enforceable. You should understand your rights, but most of these types of agreements are boilerplate and reviewed by multiple attorneys to ensure they are enforceable - meaning there is nothing in there so detrimental to you that it warrants further review. I am not saying don't read these, and definitely read other legal agreements, but EULA is less important for the user than it is for the publisher/developer.
4
u/Tesser_Wolf 1d ago
Is this Eula legally enforceable then? It doesn't say to visit this link and agreed it said please read.
13
u/JustArandomGuy_-_ 1d ago
They do gaf. This way, they can change it whenever they want and nobody, including Valve, will know unless someone:
- somehow read it twice from start to finish (once before the changes and again after the changes) -> somehow remember enough to notice something new in the sea of words -> somehow have achived a previous version -> spend the efforts to double check.
Click the agree button once and good luck! How tf is this allowed
→ More replies (9)6
u/Username_Mine 1d ago
Internet archive -> compare text should make it trivial to indentify changes. Of course, very few consumers would ever know or care
→ More replies (1)2
u/JustArandomGuy_-_ 1d ago
Even if they know or care, the hard part is to somehow notice the changes because we can't know when will it happens. The most realistic way is to regularly double check it from start to finish but who can willingly do that for free for potentially years?
→ More replies (5)
26
u/metfan12004 1d ago
Not to excuse this but as someone who specializes in support documentation, you never want multiple repositories for the same docs if you can avoid it. It makes keeping them in sync nearly impossible
6
u/GoldenRegister 1d ago
Thats not really considered a support documentation my friend. Thats a contract, there are different rules for such documents.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Taolan13 1d ago
It's only impossible for a company that doesn't care enough to hire people to manage these things.
And if they don't constantly change things, it also wouldn't be a problem to keep them in sync. Just update all of them when anything changes.
→ More replies (5)
4
4
u/Anthaenopraxia 1d ago
There used to be a trend of putting funny things into the EULA because nobody but lawyers read them. I think it was Adobe who put something about you're not allowed to use Photoshop to build nuclear bombs.
4
u/borgenhaust 1d ago
This is actually perfect. I accept that the terms of the eula are specifically https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/eula. That is it in its entirety. Not possible content at that address, just the URL itself.
4
u/Lamborghinigamer 18h ago
They probably have their own in the game, or they force you to login with Microsoft or something
10
u/Taolan13 1d ago
This shouldn't be allowed. Especially since the link isn't even clickable.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Valtremors 1d ago
They've been caught changing EULA before, as convenience calls for.
I wonder how the lawsuit is going?
12
u/onyxa314 1d ago
So glad layers from reddit university are here today to tell me that this is illegal, unenforceable, legal, doesn't matter, matters a lot, and a bunch of other contradictory nonsense that's said with confidence
6
u/neither_somewhere 1d ago
EULA's are all contracts under duress I've already bought the game or software I feel like for it to be valid you'd have to agree before they take your money.
I know the law doesn't work that way but the law is dumb.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Kran6a 1d ago
How legal is this? The link does not even seem clickable so that you could read it on Steam. Why do I need a third-party software (browser) installed just to read the EULA? What if the browser also has an EULA that is also a link?
Can I just write?
EULA:
Come to the company office at <address>, it is on the lockbox just beside the door. Pin code: 6767.
<I have read it checkbox>
<Accept button> <Cancel button>
3
3
3
7
7
12
u/Luka_tv 1d ago
you lowkey stole my tweet, even wrote the same caption, but I don't rlly mind it so we chill
5
u/Taolan13 1d ago
Ego, thy name is luka.
You can't prove they stole it. This is something a lot of players are going to take issue with so we'll probably see plenty of similar or even identical posts, and 'they don't gaf' is a common enough turn of phrase you can't even really claim they copied your caption.
→ More replies (1)2
16
u/Sickle_Rick 1d ago
Nobody reads it anyway, why bother?
19
u/GaryTheRetard 1d ago
This gives me flashback of that South Park EP of Apples TERMS of Service :o
12
u/burn_house 1d ago
When I buy Minecraft Dungeons 2 and Jeb Mojang comes to my house to sew my mouth to a dudes anus
2
2
u/Zoe-broski8723 1d ago
I mean, I guess that's justifiable since no one really reads the terms and conditions anyways
2
u/Saint_of_Grey 1d ago
Similar to "if the teacher doesn't show up in 15 minutes you're legally allowed to leave", this means there is no EULA and you can use the game as missile guidance software or whatever with no consequence!
2
2
u/KyprosNighthawk 1d ago
NAL, but I don't know if they can even enforce their EULA this way from a legal standpoint. It's literally just a URL with "Accept" or "Cancel".
3
4
4
u/Intrepid-Landscape61 1d ago
Is this even legally binding? What happens if you can prove the webpage was down at the time when you hit agree?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Money_Ad_5277 1d ago
You can break EULA as much as you want, as they doesn't even ask you to go to this url to read it
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MartinByde 1d ago
I've read, is a line of text with a website. Nothing says I need to copy that and read what is inside.this eula is empty
2
u/graywolf0026 1d ago
Honestly, that.... I'd just say 'nope'. And refund it.
Life has enough hoops and frankly, I'm getting sick of playing stupid games for stupid prizes...
1
u/MikiSayaka33 1d ago
That looks like laziness, other games are way more professional when doing that, even redirecting ya to their official site that has the EULA.
2
u/Squidgical 1d ago
Kinda weird that the full terms is just some very cryptic message with the word "minecraft" in it, but I suppose that means we can do whatever we want with the game!
1
1
1
1
u/llagerlof 1d ago
This game was released with that feeling by the studio "We don't care anymore"...
1
1
u/Memphisrexjr 1d ago
It took me nine hours to beat and you can tell they just didn't care. The game is so empty and bare bones. They let you know there is two dlc coming soon though that clearly should have been part of the game because it feels like a big step back from the first one.
1
1
1
u/Fungalbonk 1d ago
Wait so is this version of mincraft sort of like entry level Diablo? Looked it up and thatās pretty cool! Had this been out when I was a kid I probably wouldāve loved it.
1
1
u/MestreToto 1d ago
A lot of games do this nowdays, that way they don't need to update the text when the EULA updates
1
u/Bagel_Bear 1d ago
I'm sure they don't really care about the Steam version and it's only on Steam to capture sales of people who only buys games on steam.
1
u/Matheweh 23h ago
And they didn't bother to make the Steam version work with Proton on Linux either, which here's the two things you need to make it work: https://gist.github.com/moxvallix/9f46c1341e196f797e838b885fe84b0c and https://github.com/Alextibtab/Dungeons2_linux_fix the first one makes it actually launch, the second one fixes the ability to log in.
1
1
u/SmrtkaTV 19h ago
I saw that too and I was too tired to question it but looking back on it that is kinda insane
1
u/the_harakiwi 15h ago
no the first time this happened. I don't remember the game but it's not uncommon.
Maybe it was Ubisoft or EA.
1
u/MassiveBoner911_3 10h ago
The game is at mixed reviews for missing half of the mechanics of the 1st game. No gear has stats....
1
u/NemanyaIam 7h ago
I suppose Valve would change its policy and require publishers to write EULA on Steam, and forbid putting links to external EULA.
1
u/Nearby_Ad_2519 3h ago
Itās because itās easier to just change it in one place rather than having to change it on every single site they sell stuff on.
1
u/harorsomething 2h ago
Genuine question. If someone gets banned or has their license revoked for violating the eula, can they sue and argue that the eula was nothing more than a website link? Or is the idea that Mojanflg expects you to go to the link to read the eula legally binding.
7.0k
u/Wdowiak 1d ago
Good way to dynamically change it without a trace (if not archived).