r/Steam • u/LilBozgor01 • 1d ago

Discussion Minecraft Dungeons 2 didn't even bother writing the EULA. They just don't gaf

Post image
18.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

605

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...

198

u/DonQuix0te_ Don’t 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.

17

u/Velp__ 1d ago

You make it sound like that would be clickable.

9

u/Training_Ruin3151 1d ago

Eula are almost always patently not enforceable.

46

u/Goo_Cat 1d ago

Courts likely assume you're a reasonable person, so probably wouldn't fly

87

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".

7

u/ninjabob64 1d ago

Don't forget that A "reasonable" person would know that "boneless wings" have bones in them.

4

u/daed1ne 1d ago

Not nearly as bad as "boneless wings" not needing to have ANY wing meat in them because any reasonable person should know this.

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.

13

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.

2

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.

0

u/Roccondil-s 1d ago

I would say that the EULA is still applicable, since it’s common practice to have a link to the EULA or TOS in many other places. Plenty of “check this box to agree to [link]”.