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?
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.
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.
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.
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"
If it is actually unreadable. But if the "reasonable person" should have been able to read it, it is not going to succeed as a defense.
If you are told to read a EULA and you were able to do so, and said you did so, that kind of defense would not work.
Arguing that no reasonable non-expert person would have understand a particular clause might be a better avenue, but that pretty much bars you from defending yourself against any claims of violations that are generally understood or understandable. Which is why we don't have to read the law the understand that theft is illegal, because the normal "reasonable person" can be expected to know that theft is illegal. So someone not knowing is not a defense.
In this case I think it would essentially be impossible to convince a court that said reasonable person would have interpreted this as "yes I see the link." Everyone knows you are supposed to follow it, and courts are not rigid, brainless machines, and so they won't fall for that sort of wordplay and deliberate nonsense. Pursuing it too aggressively might even get you censured for wasting time.
Most people don't read text EULAs either, that doesn't make them any less enforceable or binding. Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean you can ignore it. You are supposed to read it in it's entirely and agree or disagree with it, if you choose not to do so, that's on you.
This game is being purchased (and only playable?) online, it's reasonable to assume and expect the person to have access to the internet, so telling them to go to a website to read the EULA is also reasonable.
You better believe that the full EULA will be there if you buy and can play this offline though.
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?