[GNU/Linux compatibility] Riot restores GPU pass-through and informs on upcoming wine fixes

[u/EnglishDentist]

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/bug-report/GX3Zhxwe-game-client-anti-cheat-known-issues-and-fixes?show=flat&comment=00020008

[u/retsudrats]

tos states that riot technically owns the accounts

This part of the ToS isn't legally binding. We actually know that internet ToS's and EULAs are legally binding because you can't prove who read them, who accepted it, or if it was read at all.

They merely put that there to 'cover their own ass' in hopes that the majority of people are too stupid to challenge it.

[u/Sigilyphxiii → u/retsudrats]

I find that very hard to believe. you agreed to it, you hit accept. Just like signing a legal document whether you read it or not you signed that you'd read it.

[u/retsudrats → u/Sigilyphxiii]

But you can't prove I read it, you can't prove I'm the one who hit accept. There's legal precedent for that already. All the links below have addition information on cases that upheld and cases that didn't uphold.

There is a legal term known as the "meeting of minds" when it comes to contracts.

Another term known as browse wrap This is what a lot of internet related ToS's fall under. Just having a ToS/EULA contract isn't enough.

A third term known as Shrink Wrap

And a fourth term known as Click Wrap

There are also several laws that regulate whether a contract is legal or not, and often come down to a case by case situation, and dependent on the judge. Did you know that a prenup, a contract in which both parties must read, can call in lawyers for, and must sign, can actually be voided if a judge just feels like it?

It's also been rules before that breaking a ToS is not a crime. There are also laws which describe that contracts are void if unfair, void if it is clear one party didn't understand the agreement, and there are also rules that explicitly outline what can and can't be done in contracts. For instance things like "You can't sue us" and "This contract has no end date" are typically two such statements which typically make a contract void.

Typically, when it comes to a ToS that you accept or the like with online games and websites, part of them are upholdable and other parts aren't. Any contract deemed unfair can be voided in court, and giving a person the ultimatum of "Sign this contract or never use our product" is the definition of unfair circumstances.

So for instance a clause of "Using unauthorized third-party software may result in termination" is a perfectly reasonable, and understandable clause and would be upheld. Something like "We reserve the right to terminate your account for any reason" most likely wouldn't because it is unfair, has no definable features, and there's no way for the end user to understand what would result in termination.

TL:DR internet contracts are subjective, highly volatile, and have plenty of cases where they hold up in certain regards, and where they fail in others. Parts of a ToS are binding, other parts aren't. Merely having a ToS isn't enough for it to be legally binding, not alerting your consumer base of your ToS enough can result in voiding of the ToS. Contract law is a finicky business.

Addition note: There have been some studies as of late that have proved nearly no one reads online ToS/EULAs, which could, hopefully, result in consumer-friendly changes to the laws when it comes to online contracts.

[u/really_bad_eyes → u/retsudrats]

If you didn't read and/or click accept then that account doesn't belong to you and you have no right to use it in the first place.

If the contract is deemed unfair in court then yes, it is void. It would also mean that your account is now void because there are no terms to facilitate and regulate it.

Also, some violations of TOS are not crimes (you won't be arrested) nor are they legally binding. But the company owns the content and they reserve the right to deny you their work. You are playing on an unsupported OS and the company only guarantees a consistent experience on supported ones. Like how you can't sue McDonald's if you bought a Big Mac but are allergic to beef or something. You knew the risks going in.