Analyse du CLUF d'Ubisoft à la lumière de l'affaire The Crew

Update note (2026). This article has been entirely rewritten and verified against the official French version of the Ubisoft CLUF (last revision: 01/2023). It corrects two errors in our previous versions, the role of the DSA, and the applicable law, and analyses the contract clause by clause.

This analysis was carried out on the occasion of the The Crew case, but it applies to all Ubisoft games: the publisher applies the same framework CLUF to its entire catalogue. This is precisely one of the problems we point out, a single, generic contract slapped onto games that are nonetheless very different.

Reading markers: unfair clause illegal / legally contestable false or misleading

Summary. What you buy is a licence to use: a genuine right of use, which you have paid for. This is neither shameful nor abnormal, it is the very nature of what one acquires with a game, and it is the CLUF that defines this licence. The lie, kept alive by some, consists in sliding this reality towards "you own nothing, everything is revocable, tough luck". The real problem is therefore not the licence: it is that it is governed by a generic CLUF (the same for all games) that is modifiable after acceptance, riddled with revocable clauses. In The Crew, these clauses combine, non-transfer, DRM, mandatory connection and account, prohibition of server emulators, termination when the publisher ends support, destruction of copies, unilateral modification, to form an architecture of total dependence. The real question is therefore not "did Ubisoft write these clauses?" (yes), but "are these clauses valid and enforceable when they render a paid-for product entirely unusable?"

The Crew: the textbook case

The Crew, released in late 2014, was an "always-online" game: it required a permanent connection to Ubisoft's servers, even in single-player. On 31 March 2024, Ubisoft shut down those servers. The result: the game became totally unplayable, even for players who had paid for it and owned the disc. It is the founding event of the Stop Killing Games movement and of the European citizens' initiative Stop Destroying Videogames.

What you really buy: a licence to use, and that is legitimate

Let us say it clearly, because it is often misunderstood: when you "buy" a game, you buy a licence to use. A genuine right of use, which you have paid for. There is nothing abnormal or shameful about this, it is the very nature of what one acquires with a software work, and it is precisely the CLUF that defines this right ("This product is made available to you under a licence, it is not sold to you", art. 1.1).

The lie is therefore not "it is a licence": that is true. The lie, kept alive by some, consists in sliding this reality towards "you own nothing, everything is revocable, tough luck". No. You hold a genuine right of use, and that right has value. The debate must not be trapped between two caricatures, "you own the game" (false) and "you own nothing" (also false).

The real problem is not the licence in itself: it lies in the way it is governed. Three flaws drain it of its substance:

a generic CLUF, identical for all of a publisher's games, when there should be a CLUF specific to each game, honestly describing what that particular title requires (servers, connection, announced lifespan);
a CLUF that is unilaterally modifiable after acceptance, when a contract, once "signed", should no longer be rewritable by only one of the parties;
revocable and unbalanced clauses, discretionary termination, destruction of copies, that allow the publisher to take back the right it sold you.

In other words: the scandal is not buying a licence, it is that you are sold a licence whose content can change afterwards and whose use can disappear at the publisher's discretion. A CLUF cannot, through a general formula, erase the mandatory consumer protections, neutralise the legal guarantees, make a discretionary termination acceptable, or remove the effects attached to a legally acquired physical medium.

Licence, yes, rental, no (unless there are clear dates)

One point deserves to be settled: a licence to use acquired for consideration and for an indefinite term is not a rental. A rental would be access that is limited in time, and a rental presupposes dates: a start, an end, a duration announced before the purchase. This is the whole ambiguity that publishers keep alive: they refuse to speak of a sale (to deny ownership), but they are careful not to speak of a rental (because they would then have to display a duration and let you choose with full knowledge of the facts).

The result is a hybrid legal object, neither sale nor rental, a licence that is "perpetual" on paper but revocable in practice at any moment, without any dates. Yet one cannot have both: either it is a licence acquired for an indefinite term, and it cannot be taken back at the publisher's discretion; or it is a rental, and it must then be governed by clear dates, displayed before purchase. Consumer law should impose this choice, and display it in black and white at the moment of payment.

"Licence, not sale": what it really covers

The clause is defensible as a reminder that Ubisoft does not transfer the copyright, the code, the graphics, the music or the characters: these intellectual property rights remain with the publisher or its licensors. Buying The Crew obviously does not give the right to copy its code or exploit its assets.

But that is not the real question. The real question is whether Ubisoft can use this intellectual property to drain almost entirely of its substance the purchase made by the consumer. Between "I do not own the copyright" and "I own no genuine right of lasting use", there is an immense legal space, and it is precisely this space that modern CLUFs attempt to close off.

The physical medium: the object exists, the use disappears

For a game on disc, the player owns at the very least the physical medium. The CLUF acknowledges this moreover: it provides for a limited 90-day guarantee against defects in the physical medium (art. 5). The Cour de cassation itself recalls that the first sale of physical copies of a work exhausts the distribution right over those copies.

One must therefore avoid writing that the player "owns nothing". They do not own the work, but they own the disc, the box, and above all a legitimate expectation attached to a product sold as playable. The CLUF then superimposes two realities: on one side a physical medium sold as a good (and guaranteed for 90 days); on the other a revocable licence to use that can render this good totally useless. The consumer keeps the object, but loses the essential function for which they bought it.

Technical dependence: DRM, connection, account, Ubisoft Connect

The Crew does not disappear only because of a legal clause, but because of the combination of the contract and the technical architecture. The CLUF provides that a DRM may limit installations and install components (art. 3.1), and that "an Internet connection, a Ubisoft account, the installation of the Ubisoft Connect client software and registration with the single-use serial code may be required to play".

These elements transform a game sold to the public into a product dependent on an infrastructure controlled by the publisher. The consumer no longer depends only on the medium they own, but on a technical lock that the publisher can close.

Server emulators prohibited: the emergency exit locked

This is a major point, often overlooked. The CLUF explicitly prohibits "creating, providing or using other ways of using the Product, for example server emulators" (art. 1.3.d).

During normal commercial operation, such a clause is understandable (fighting cheating, piracy, attacks on the official servers). But after the definitive shutdown of the service, it becomes far more contestable: the publisher can close the only official door, then prohibit players and archivists from building an emergency exit. Ubisoft therefore does not merely authorise the ending of support: it also tends to prevent community preservation solutions. This is exactly what Stop Killing Games fights against.

Termination (art. 8): the clause that switches off the game

This is the contractual heart of the case. The CLUF provides that both the player and Ubisoft may terminate "at any time"; termination by Ubisoft takes effect notably "on the date of Ubisoft's decision to stop offering the Product". On termination, the user "must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies".

The "either party may terminate" symmetry is largely fictitious. If the player terminates, they lose the game they paid for. If Ubisoft terminates or ends support, it is thousands or millions of players who simultaneously lose access to a purchased product, while the publisher keeps the past revenue. The imbalance is not in the abstract wording, it is in its concrete effects. Under French law, clauses allowing the trader to terminate in a discretionary manner or without reasonable notice are precisely in the sights of the lists of unfair clauses (art. R.212-1 and R.212-2 of the Consumer Code).

"Destroy all copies": a clause to be read strictly

This obligation must be read with caution. It can be understood for software copies that have been installed or reproduced. But interpreted as targeting the physical copy itself, it becomes disproportionate: a private contract should not be able to require a consumer to destroy a legally purchased object simply because the publisher has decided to stop its service. Directive 2019/770 moreover provides, for content supplied on a tangible medium, a mechanism for returning the medium at the trader's request and expense, a logic very different from "destroy everything".

Unilateral modification (art. 9): the clash with Directive 2019/770

The CLUF allows Ubisoft to "revise, update, change, modify" the contract without mandatory prior notice, continued use counting as acceptance; and to "modify the Product for any reason whatsoever or for no specific reason".

This latitude is head-on confronted with Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2019/770: modifying digital content supplied over a period is only possible if the contract provides for it on a valid reason, at no additional cost, with clear information to the consumer, and often with a right of termination if the negative impact is not minor. A clause of "we modify whatever we want, whenever we want, without notice, without reason" is hard to reconcile with this framework. In an always-online game, a "modification" that results in making the game unplayable cannot be treated as a mere ordinary update.

RAM scanning, "as is" guarantees, indemnification: the rest of the imbalance

Monitoring of RAM (art. 4): the product may scan the random-access memory to detect third-party programs; upon detection, Ubisoft receives the account name, the IP address, the program details, the timestamp and the hardware characteristics, and may terminate "with or without notice". Anti-cheat is legitimate, but a clause combining surveillance, transmission of personal data and termination warrants a strict proportionality review (and a clear legal basis under the RGPD).
Product "as is" and capped liability: the CLUF supplies the product "as is", without any guarantee of uninterrupted operation, and caps liability. But a clause cannot remove the legal guarantees of conformity or the right to redress in case of the trader's breach. "As is" does not erase the obligation to supply conforming digital content (Directive 2019/770).
Indemnification: the player indemnifies Ubisoft against broad claims and legal fees. In a mass-market adhesion contract, such a clause must be interpreted strictly and must not become a tool of intimidation.

Correction: the applicable law is French law

Our previous versions stated that the CLUF referred to the law and courts of England and Wales. This is false for the current French version. The latter specifies (art. 10.4) that "this CLUF is governed by French law" and recognises "the exclusive jurisdiction of the French Courts". (The en-US version, for its part, refers to Californian law and arbitration, but that is not the relevant version for a French player.)

This point reinforces the analysis: for a French player, there is no need to get lost in a debate about a foreign forum. The clauses are confronted directly with the Consumer Code, the legal guarantees and transposed European law. The CLUF moreover ends with a useful admission: it applies "only to the extent permitted by law". Ubisoft therefore knows that a written clause is not automatically enforceable.

The central thesis: the cumulative effect

No clause should be analysed in isolation. The The Crew problem arises from their addition: game characterised as a licence and not a sale; non-assignable licence; physical medium recognised but without any guarantee of use; access conditioned on DRM, connection, account and Ubisoft Connect; server emulators prohibited; monitoring of RAM; termination possible when the publisher ends support; obligation to uninstall and destroy copies; unilateral modification of the CLUF and of the product; limited guarantees and remedies.

Taken separately, each element presents itself as a "standard" clause. Taken together, they build a contractual and technical architecture of total dependence: the player pays as if buying a game, but ends up treated as a mere precarious user of a service that the publisher can switch off.

What European law really says (without excessive certainty)

Two grounds are far more solid than the DSA:

Unfair clauses (Directive 93/13/EEC; art. L.212-1 of the Consumer Code): a clause creating a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment is deemed unwritten. Discretionary termination, unilateral modification, removal of remedies: these types of clauses appear on the black (R.212-1) and grey (R.212-2) lists. This is probably the strongest angle.
Directive (EU) 2019/770: it does not on its own guarantee eternal playability. On the other hand, it offers serious ground for challenging a clause allowing radical modification of access to digital content without valid reason, without clear information, without an alternative and without effective redress. It also provides that clauses excluding, to the consumer's detriment, the national transposition measures do not bind them.

RGPD and DSA: beware of confusions. The RGPD (fines up to 10M€ or 2% of worldwide turnover, and 20M€ or 4% for the most serious breaches) concerns personal data, not the shutdown of a game. The DSA is a regulation (not a directive) that exposes certain platforms to fines up to 6% of worldwide turnover, but it targets interfaces, transparency and dark patterns, not the legality of a licence termination clause. For The Crew, the right grounds are Directive 2019/770, unfair clauses, conformity and pre-contractual information.

"Accepted" does not mean "valid"

The CLUF is accepted by the mere installation or launch of the game. If the decisive clauses (revocable licence, non-transfer, ending of support, destruction of copies) are only discovered after the purchase, the consent is legally weak. You had contractually accepted a clause allowing this outcome, but it remains to be seen whether this clause is enforceable against a European consumer when it results in totally depriving of use a paid-for product. An accepted clause can be deemed unwritten if it is unfair or contrary to a mandatory protection.

Two simple requirements that would change everything

PlayRite's position can be summed up in two concrete demands, which in no way call into question the principle of the licence, they make it honest:

One CLUF per game. No more catch-all contract identical for the entire catalogue. Each game should have its own contract, clearly describing what it actually requires: permanent connection or not, announced lifespan of the servers, what happens when they shut down. The player would finally know what they are buying, game by game, before paying.
A CLUF that is not modifiable after acceptance. What you "signed" must remain what applies. A publisher should not be able to unilaterally rewrite the contract after purchase, nor transform the product or the attached rights after the fact. A contract frozen at the moment of agreement is the basis of any serious commitment.

Add to this the regulation of discretionary termination clauses, and the licence to use becomes again what it should always have been: a genuine, stable and enforceable right, and not a tolerance that the publisher can withdraw whenever it wants.

Conclusion: the contract explains the disappearance, it does not absolve it

The The Crew case does not only show that Ubisoft had contractually provided for the shutdown of the game. It shows how modern CLUFs organise a progressive dispossession of the player: not by selling a licence (which is normal), but by governing it with a generic and modifiable contract, prohibition of transfer, locking through DRM and online account, prohibition of server emulators, termination when support ends, destruction of copies, unilateral modification, limited guarantees and remedies.

The real debate is therefore not "did Ubisoft write these clauses?", yes. It is: "can these clauses be enforced against a consumer when they render a paid-for product totally unusable, without an alternative, without transfer, without a private server, without continuity and without effective redress?" PlayRite considers that this question remains open, and must be settled at French and European level, not clause by clause, but in light of their cumulative effect on the player's genuine right to use what they paid for.

Note on versions: as the game was released in 2014, the CLUF applicable at the time (accessible via The Crew's Steam page) may differ from the current version. The clauses cited here come from the official French version in force (revision 01/2023); the historical Steam version already contains the same mechanisms ("licensed, not sold", DRM, server emulators, RAM monitoring, termination, unilateral modification).

Analysis of Ubisoft's EULA in Light of the The Crew Case