The HELLDIVERS™©®³ 2 EULA is a god damn URL
I feel like this is an attempt at EULA roofying. I think it’s a way for the user to not be notified every time they make a change to it. I’m pretty sure (don’t quote me) steam notifies you every time the EULA changes, but since the license is on their website, they can change it without changing the url and notifying the user
There’s no way it isn’t EULA roofying, I just hope Sony doesn’t start murdering American wives too…
a good lawyer could probably argue that a user isn’t bound to that eula.
heck a bad lawyer could probably too.
They’re bound to the EULA, but the EULA is meaningless because it’s just a URL. They’re definitely not bound by whatever’s at that URL.
This would be like having someone sign a contract when the contract was just a shopping list. Sure, they’re bound by the “contract”, but the contract doesn’t specify anything they can or can’t do.
And the URL text can be changed at any time
It could be changed at any time, it might not resolve properly, the page could be hijacked, an ad blocker could decide it’s an ad and show something else instead…
And if the page is set to no index and no robots, the only record of any change could be client side only
Tecnically I agreed to “https://www.playstation.com/legal/op-eula”, there is nothing that tells me that I have to go the site and read it there
Are any users actually bound, ever?
Depends on how paid off the judge is in the lawsuit.
Tangentially related: I really enjoyed the EULA of Baldur’s Gate 3:
“I read the URL. It was not very informative.”
That URL is asking to ddos’ed
I have read the URL in it’s entirety. It’s not an agreement. This query is invalid.
I bet you could argue in court that the EULA is null and void, because you can’t be reasonably expected to copy that link into a browser to read it
The EULA isn’t null and void, but it’s pretty meaningless. Not because you can’t reasonably be expected to copy that link into a browser to read it, but because there’s no indication that you should or even must do that.
The EULA contains no terms, it doesn’t contain any wording saying what you can or can’t do. It doesn’t say what your rights are. It just contains something that looks like a URL. So, you’re still bound by the terms of the EULA (as much as you’re bound by any EULA) but the EULA doesn’t permit or forbid anything. It’s effectively the same as if it were blank.
You can not, in fact, copy that link - I had to type it manually. It’s relatively short and human-readable, but still…
Devil’s advocate: I wouldn’t accuse Sony (or friends) of intentionally making the text unselectable, that’s on the Steam client.
Still, Steam probably has some clause in their developer agreement where they say that’s not on them.
Bonus rant: the webpage is one of those death row worthy websites that forces you into the localization it determines based on your IP address, rather than using the HTTP header that has been specifically defined for that purpose.
The header defines the language, but laws follow political borders, so it makes sense. E.g. which country’s eula would you show for a German speaker Germany, Austria or Switzerland?
Language specifiers include country level variants - de-DE, de-AT, de-CH
Yes, I accept that that is a URL.
Somebody up at Sony had a Jira ticket to update all the eulas and it listed the URLs for each one, instead of going to the URLs and putting the content in each one of the eulas they just slaped the URLs in.
Edit: clarity
Technically, if you’re internet is down or finicky, you could be simply agreeing to a 404 error.
Is an EULA presented this way considered binding? That seems really exploitable, like making people click hundreds of links to get to the real EULA so they don’t actually read it.
Tell that to the people who just got denied the ability to sue over an Uber crash because their daughter agreed to the Uber eats eula
Or the family of the person who died at Disney and can’t sue because they did a free trial of Disney+
That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.
So it doesn’t actually hold any weight until a court actually rules on it.
That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.
Disney backed down. They still believe they have that right, and no court has ever said they didn’t, but the bad publicity was too much for them in this case. They’ll wait until there’s a case that doesn’t get that kind of publicity before they try to establish that precedent.
They can believe all they want. Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.
I hope people stop believing they have that kind of power, but decide not to do it from the goodness of their heart or bad publicity.
I should hope the actual law still has more relevance than a ToS.
Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.
They believe that the users agreed to a contract that specifies that in any dealings with Disney they’ve agreed to binding arbitration.
What’s the “false statement” there?
