Ubisoft, despite expressing remorse over the 2024 shutdown of its racing game The Crew and promising such an event would not be repeated with its sequels The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest, is staunchly defending its actions in a proposed class action lawsuit. The company’s core argument against the plaintiffs is that they only purchased “limited licenses” to access the game and, therefore, should have understood that their access was not guaranteed to be permanent.
Ubisoft’s Legal Defense: Packaging Warnings and Limited Licenses
Ubisoft has presented a multifaceted legal defense seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit concerning the shutdown of The Crew. The company argues that relevant statutes of limitation have expired and that the plaintiffs suffered no “cognizable injury.” Furthermore, Ubisoft contends there is no proof that the plaintiffs would have refrained from purchasing the title even if they had known about its eventual shutdown. Central to their defense is the assertion that “explicit warnings on the game’s packaging” clearly informed consumers they were acquiring a limited license. Specifically, Ubisoft points to notices on both Xbox and PlayStation packaging which stated, in all capital letters, that “UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE.” The packaging also highlighted that an “ONLINE CONNECTION REQUIRED” for PlayStation, and the Xbox version similarly warned that The Crew “REQUIRES INTERNET,” underscoring that online connectivity, which could be terminated, was essential for gameplay.
The ‘Clear and Conspicuous’ Standard and Regulatory Scrutiny
The effectiveness of Ubisoft’s defense hinges partly on whether the warnings on the racing game’s packaging were genuinely “clear and conspicuous.” Visual evidence, such as scans of the game’s packaging available on sites like MobyGames, shows these disclaimers, but their prominence is debatable. This issue of “clear and conspicuous” disclosure has precedents in the gaming industry, notably in the aftermath of the CS:GO Lotto case, which led to regulatory actions requiring transparent disclosure from influencers. More recently, the shutdown of The Crew itself has spurred regulatory attention, with California proposing a new law mandating “clear and conspicuous” warnings to consumers about the potential revocability of their purchased digital games. Following this, platform Steam added a disclaimer to its purchase pages clarifying that a digital purchase grants a license. In contrast, competitor GOG has long emphasized its provision of offline installers, which it markets as a form of ownership that “cannot be taken away.”
Navigating Digital Ownership in Gaming
This lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew carries broader implications for the concept of digital game ‘ownership’. The discussion was notably fueled by comments from a Ubisoft executive in 2024, who suggested that gamers need to become comfortable with the idea of not owning their games. This reflects the evolving nature of digital purchases, where consumers often acquire licenses rather than outright ownership. The legal interpretations stemming from cases like this could potentially challenge the prevailing “temporary ownership” model, questioning whether current industry practices adequately protect consumer expectations and rights in an increasingly digital marketplace where the lines defining digital property remain ambiguous.
Ubisoft’s ‘Benefit of the Bargain’ Defense
Ubisoft further argues that the plaintiffs lack legal standing because they received the “benefit of the bargain.” The company asserts that individuals who purchased The Crew had access to and enjoyed the game for several years before its servers were retired in late 2023, nearly a decade after its initial release. According to Ubisoft, players received what they paid for and cannot now claim deception merely because an offline version of the discontinued videogame was not subsequently created. To support this, Ubisoft’s lawyers referenced the Mai v. Supercell Oy case, where the court found plaintiffs lacked standing as they did “not allege a deficiency in the loot boxes or virtual currency they received,” essentially affirming they “received what they paid for,” despite later dissatisfaction with aspects of the game or its economy.
In response to Ubisoft’s arguments, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March. This updated filing includes counter-arguments, such as the claim that The Crew’s virtual currency should be treated like gift certificates, which under California law are not permitted to expire. Therefore, rendering this currency useless when the game was shut down was allegedly unlawful. Additionally, the plaintiffs point to the game’s packaging, which indicated that the activation code for the racing title would not expire until 2099, implying an expectation of long-term playability. The case, which could have significant implications for digital consumer rights, is ongoing.
