Full title: Ubisoft says you “cannot complain” it shut down The Crew because you never actually owned it, and you weren’t “deceived” by the lack of an offline version “to access a decade-old, discontinued video game”

Ubisoft’s lawyers have responded to a class action lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that it was always clear that you didn’t own the game and calling for a dismissal of the case outright.

The class action was filed in November 2024, and Ubisoft’s response came in February 2025, though it’s only come to the public’s attention now courtesy of Polygon. The full response from Ubisoft attorney Steven A. Marenberg picks apart the claims of plaintiffs Matthew Cassell and Alan Liu piece by piece, but the most common refrain is that The Crew’s box made clear both that the game required an internet connection and that Ubisoft retained the right to revoke access “to one or more specific online features” with a 30-day notice at its own discretion.

  • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    “Nobody reads those EULAs, and the Defendant knows that. Therefore, the Defendant cannot hide behind the EULA as a shield because the Prosecution, having clicked Agree without being required to confirm that they read through the terms, could not have possibly known what they were agreeing to.”

    “If you are what you agree to, your Honor, then my clients are an unknown spaghetti of legal mumbo jumbo.”

    “No further remarks, your Honor.”

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      7 days ago

      I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.

      It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 days ago

        There was a video game store that once, for April Fools Day, included in its sale terms:

        By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorized minions.

        Only 12% of people that purchased that day responded, essentially confirming only 12% of people actually read the terms.

        • AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          12% is honestly way higher than I thought it would be. That number might be inflated by people looking for funny stuff on April 1st though

          • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            I think one could successfully argue in a court of law that people tend to be hyper aware on April 1st, and so may have read the terms suspecting something amiss when they otherwise would not have.

    • Zess@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      The judge would tell you you’re an idiot who said nothing worthwhile and that ignorance of the things you agree to doesn’t make them void when they’re used against you.