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 (latest revision: 01/2023). It corrects two errors from our previous versions, the role of the DSA, and the applicable law, and analyzes the contract clause by clause.

This analysis was conducted in connection with the The Crew case, but it applies to all Ubisoft games: the publisher applies the same framework CLUF to its entire catalog. This is precisely one of the problems we point to, a single, generic contract, applied to games that are nonetheless very different.

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

Summary. What you buy is a usage license: a real right of use, which you paid for. This is neither shameful nor abnormal, it is the very nature of what you acquire with a digital game, and it is the CLUF that defines this license (in physical format, you additionally own the physical copy). The lie, kept alive by some, consists of sliding this reality toward "you own nothing, everything is revocable, too bad for you". The real problem, therefore, is not the license itself: it is that it is governed by a generic CLUF (the same framework contract for the entire catalog, with no sheet specific to each game) that is modifiable after acceptance without always respecting the legal standard for such modifications, and that contains potentially unbalanced termination and copy-destruction clauses. In The Crew, these clauses combine, non-transferability, DRM, mandatory connection and account, prohibition of server emulators, termination when the publisher ceases support, destruction of copies, unilateral modification, to form an architecture of total dependency. The real question, then, is not "did Ubisoft write these clauses?" (yes), but "are these clauses valid and enforceable when they render a paid-for product completely 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 mode. On March 31, 2024, Ubisoft shut down these servers. The result: the game became completely unplayable, even for players who had paid for it and owned the disc. This is the founding event of the Stop Killing Games movement and of the European Citizens' Initiative Stop Destroying Videogames.

What you actually buy: a usage license, and that is legitimate

Let's say it clearly, because it is often misunderstood: when you "buy" a game, you are buying a usage license. A real right of use, which you paid for. There is nothing abnormal or shameful about this, it is the very nature of what you acquire with a software work, and it is precisely the CLUF that defines this right ("This product is made available to you under a license, it is not sold to you", art. 1.1).

The lie, then, is not "it's a license": that part is true. The lie, kept alive by some, consists of sliding this reality toward "you own nothing, everything is revocable, too bad for you". No. You hold a real 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 license itself: it lies in how it is regulated. Three flaws empty it of its substance:

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

In other words: the scandal is not buying a license, it is being sold a license whose content can change after the fact and whose use can disappear at the publisher's whim. A CLUF cannot, through a general clause, erase mandatory consumer protections, neutralize legal guarantees, make discretionary termination acceptable, or remove the effects attached to a lawfully acquired physical copy.

License, yes, rental, no (unless clear dates are given)

One point deserves to be settled: a usage license acquired for consideration and for an indefinite term is not a rental. A rental would be access limited in time, and a rental presupposes dates: a start, an end, a duration announced before the purchase. This is precisely the ambiguity that publishers maintain: they refuse to speak of a sale (to deny ownership), but they are also careful not to speak of a rental (because that would require displaying a duration and letting you choose with full knowledge of the facts).

The result is a hybrid legal object, neither sale nor rental, a license that is "perpetual" on paper but revocable in practice at any time, with no date whatsoever. Yet you cannot have both: either it is a license acquired for an indefinite term, in which case it cannot be taken back at the publisher's whim; or it is a rental, in which case it must be governed by clear dates, displayed before the purchase. Consumer law should impose this choice, and display it in black and white at the moment of payment.

"License, not sale": what this actually covers

The clause is defensible insofar as it recalls that Ubisoft does not transfer 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 grant 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 almost entirely empty the consumer's purchase of its substance. Between "I do not own the copyright" and "I have no real, lasting right of use", there is an immense legal space, and it is precisely this space that modern CLUFs are attempting to close off.

The physical medium: the object exists, the use disappears

For a disc-based game, the player owns at minimum the physical medium. The CLUF itself acknowledges this: it provides a limited 90-day warranty against defects in the physical medium (art. 5). The Cour de cassation itself has recalled that the first sale of physical copies of a work exhausts the distribution right over those copies.

It is therefore misleading to write that the player "owns nothing". They do not own the work, but they do own the disc, the box, and above all a legitimate expectation attached to a product sold as playable. The CLUF thus superimposes two realities: on one side a physical medium sold as a good (and warranted for 90 days); on the other a revocable usage license that can render that good entirely useless. The consumer retains the object but loses the essential function for which they bought it.

Technical dependency: DRM, connection, account, Ubisoft Connect

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

These elements turn a game sold to the public into a product dependent on 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 banned: the emergency exit locked

This is a major point, often forgotten. The CLUF explicitly prohibits "creating, providing, or using other modes of use of 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 service is permanently shut down, it becomes far more contestable: the publisher can close the only official door, then forbid players and archivists from building an emergency exit. Ubisoft is thus not merely reserving the right to end support: it also tends to prevent community preservation solutions. This is exactly what Stop Killing Games is fighting against.

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

This is the contractual heart of the matter. 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". Upon termination, the user "must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies".

The "either party can terminate" symmetry is largely fictitious. If the player terminates, they lose the game they paid for. If Ubisoft terminates or ceases support, it is thousands or millions of players who simultaneously lose access to a purchased product, while the publisher keeps the revenue already earned. The imbalance is not in the abstract sentence, it is in its concrete effects. Under French law, clauses allowing a professional to terminate at their discretion or without reasonable notice fall squarely within the sights of the lists of unfair terms (art. R.212-1 and R.212-2 of the French Consumer Code).

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

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

Modifying the CLUF and modifying the product: two operations, two legal regimes

Article 9 of the Ubisoft CLUF combines two different powers: amending the text of the contract and technically modifying the product. They are linked in practice, but they are not governed by exactly the same rules.

1. Amending the CLUF

The CLUF provides that Ubisoft may revise its terms, that the user will not necessarily receive prior notice, that they must periodically check the document, and that continued use constitutes full and irrevocable acceptance of the changes.

This mechanism must first be tested against general contract law and the law of unfair terms. General terms and conditions take effect only if they have been brought to the other party's attention and accepted. A contract can in principle only be amended by mutual consent or for a cause authorized by law. In a contract of adhesion, a non-negotiable clause creating a significant imbalance can be deemed not written.

The question, then, is not simply whether Ubisoft had provided in V1 that it could publish V2. One must also ask: what change was made, how was the player informed of it, what act genuinely demonstrates their agreement, and what solution is offered if they refuse?

Continuing to play after V2 is published does not necessarily mean accepting V2 without reservation. The player may simply be seeking to exercise the right of use they had already paid for under V1. This argument will depend on the concrete context: notification, significance of the change, the button presented, the possibility of deferring, and the consequences of refusal.

2. Modifying the product or service

The same article authorizes Ubisoft to modify the product at any time, including through automatic updates. This operation additionally falls under the specific regime for digital content and services.

For contracts concluded on or after January 1, 2022, article L.224-25-26 of the French Consumer Code governs modifications that are not necessary to maintain conformity: the contract must authorize them for a valid reason, they must not entail any additional cost, the consumer must be clearly informed and, in the case of a non-minor negative impact, informed sufficiently in advance on a durable medium. The consumer must then be able to refuse or uninstall the update, keep the previous conforming version where it remains available, or terminate the contract free of charge.

Two grievances should therefore not be confused:

Has V2 become enforceable? This is first and foremost a question of acceptance, binding force, and unfair terms.
Does the modified game remain conforming, and what remedies exist? This is the question of digital updates and the conformity guarantee.

When a new version of the contract is used to impose an unfavorable technical change, the two sets of rules can apply cumulatively.

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

RAM monitoring (art. 4): the product may scan RAM to detect third-party programs; if one is detected, Ubisoft receives the account name, IP address, program details, timestamp, and hardware characteristics, and may terminate "with or without notice". Anti-cheat measures are legitimate, but a clause combining monitoring, transmission of personal data, and termination deserves strict proportionality review (and a clear legal basis under the RGPD).
"As is" product and capped liability: the CLUF supplies the product "as is", without any guarantee against interruption, and caps liability. But a clause cannot remove the legal conformity guarantees or the right to a remedy in the event of a professional's failure. "As is" does not erase the obligation to supply conforming digital content (Directive 2019/770).
Indemnification: the player indemnifies Ubisoft against broad claims and attorney's fees. In a mass-market contract of adhesion, 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. It specifies (art. 10.4) that "this CLUF is governed by French law" and recognizes "the exclusive jurisdiction of the French courts". (The en-US version, for its part, refers to California law and arbitration, but that is not the relevant version for a French player.)

This point strengthens the analysis: for a French player, there is no need to get lost in a debate over a foreign forum. The clauses are tested directly against the French 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 analyzed in isolation. The Crew problem arises from their addition: the game classified as a license rather than a sale; a non-transferable license; the physical medium acknowledged but without any guarantee of use; access conditioned on DRM, connection, account, and Ubisoft Connect; server emulators banned; RAM monitoring; termination possible when the publisher ceases support; the obligation to uninstall and destroy copies; unilateral modification of the CLUF and of the product; limited warranties and remedies.

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

What European law actually says (without overstating certainty)

Two grounds are far more solid than the DSA:

Unfair terms (Directive 93/13/EEC; art. L.212-1 of the French Consumer Code): a clause creating a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer is deemed not written. Discretionary termination, unilateral modification, elimination of remedies: these types of clauses appear on the black list (R.212-1) and the grey list (R.212-2). This is probably the strongest angle.
Directive (EU) 2019/770: on its own, it does not guarantee eternal playability. However, it offers solid ground for challenging a clause that allows radically modifying access to digital content without a valid reason, without clear information, without an alternative, and without an effective remedy. It also provides that clauses which, to the consumer's detriment, exclude the national measures transposing it do not bind the consumer.

RGPD and DSA: beware of confusion. The RGPD (penalties of up to EUR10 million or 2% of worldwide turnover, and EUR20 million 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 of up to 6% of worldwide turnover, but it targets interfaces, transparency, and dark patterns, not the legality of a license termination clause. For The Crew, the right grounds are Directive 2019/770, unfair terms, conformity, and pre-contractual information.

The contractual timeline: what text was accepted, and when?

Analyzing the CLUF alone is not enough. The entire timeline must be reconstructed:

Before payment: what restrictions appear on the product page and in the cart?
At payment: which terms does the confirmation button actually incorporate?
At first launch: which CLUF is presented, with what version number or date?
At an update: which new version is communicated, through what channel, and with what notice period?
In case of refusal: does the player keep the game acquired under the old version, do they get an alternative, or do they lose their account and library?

Ubisoft's terms of sale state that the sales contract is concluded at the moment of the second confirmation click. The CLUF, for its part, claims to take effect at the earliest at purchase, download, or first use, while presenting installation or use as the act of acceptance. This discrepancy is not enough on its own to render the CLUF unenforceable, but it does require Ubisoft to demonstrate that the exact version of the CLUF had indeed been brought to the player's attention and incorporated into the contract before payment.

The decisive evidence, then, is not a copy of the CLUF currently online. It is the version applicable on the date of the order, its placement within the purchase journey, the text of the button, the durable copy provided to the player, and the precise act recorded as acceptance.

Is refusing an updated version a real choice? Ubisoft's terms of use, updated in January 2026, state that a user who refuses the terms or their updated version may close their account. Closure results in the loss of access to services, save data, and progress, and excludes general refunds of certain balances or unused rights. The central question then becomes: can a player refuse V2 without losing the usage rights they paid for under V1?

"Accepted" does not mean "valid"

The CLUF asserts that installing or using the game constitutes acceptance. What remains to be verified is whether that version had been brought to the player's attention before payment, what precise act was recorded, and whether the disputed clauses are enforceable. If the decisive clauses (revocable license, non-transferability, end of support, destruction of copies) are only discovered after the purchase, consent is legally weak. You had contractually accepted a clause allowing this outcome; what remains to be determined is whether that clause is enforceable against a European consumer when it results in completely depriving a paid-for product of its use. An accepted clause can be deemed not written if it is unfair or contrary to a mandatory protection.

Two simple requirements that would change everything

GamerRights' position can be summarized in two concrete demands, which in no way call into question the principle of the license, they make it honest:

A stable framework contract, plus a clear sheet per game. An entirely separate contract for each title would create 500 unreadable contracts instead of one; that is not the goal. What we are asking for: an archived, publicly consultable framework contract, and for each game a standardized sheet displayed before payment: server dependencies, announced duration or end-of-service criteria, whether an account is mandatory, transferability, offline mode, end of life, and remedies. Along with the exact identification of the accepted version and a public history of changes. The player would finally know what they are buying, game by game, before paying.
Modifications that are genuinely regulated, as the law already provides. Not a contract frozen for eternity (Directive 2019/770 and article L.224-25-26 of the French Consumer Code authorize certain modifications), but the strict application of their standard: no unnecessary unfavorable modification without a valid reason set out in the contract, without clear advance notice on a durable medium, without cost to the player, and without the possibility of refusing, of keeping the previous version where possible, or of terminating free of charge when the negative effect is not minor. Several of the CLUFs studied grant the professional a very broad power of modification. This assessment must nonetheless be documented title by title and version by version.

In France, this regime applies to contracts concluded on or after January 1, 2022. For an older purchase, such as a copy of The Crew acquired in 2014, the rules applicable on the date of the contract must be reconciled with the effects produced later on.

Add to this the regulation of discretionary termination clauses, and the usage license becomes once again what it should always have been: a real, stable, and enforceable right, not a tolerance that the publisher can withdraw whenever it wishes.

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

The Crew case does not merely show that Ubisoft had contractually planned for the game's shutdown. It shows how modern CLUFs organize a progressive dispossession of the player: not by selling a license (which is normal), but by framing it with a generic and modifiable contract, a ban on transfer, DRM and online-account locking, a ban on server emulators, termination when support ends, destruction of copies, unilateral modification, limited warranties and remedies.

The real debate, then, is not "did Ubisoft write these clauses?", yes, it did. It is: "can these clauses be enforced against a consumer when they render a paid-for product completely unusable, with no alternative, no transfer, no private server, no continuity, and no effective remedy?" GamerRights believes this question remains open, and must be settled at the French and European level, not clause by clause, but in light of their cumulative effect on the player's real right to use what they paid for.

Note on versions: since the game was released in 2014, the CLUF applicable at that time (accessible via The Crew's Steam page) may differ from the current version. The clauses cited here are drawn from the official French version currently 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).

This analysis concerns the documents and user journeys observed as of the date indicated. The enforceability of a clause depends on the applicable version, the sales contract, the country, the purchase date, and evidence of the actual journey. A current copy of the CLUF is not sufficient to establish what a specific player accepted several years earlier.

Analysis of Ubisoft's CLUF in Light of The Crew Case