They hide their sleaze behind walls of text written in a deliberately impenetrable pseudolanguage.
Wouldn't a ruling in effect mean that this particular bit of sleaze is not allowed, even if it's in the contract?
Although ultimately the ruling that's really needed is one saying that all these "agreements" are unconscionable and invalid. And also one saging that consumer rights in general can't be waived. Unfortunately, the world's governments, EU included, are far too in league with big business to ever rule like this officially.
First, I'm not a lawyer.
Secondly, I do not currently live in the EU, so it may be parsed differently there.
That being said, I do have some experience with how wording can matter when it comes to legality, rules, and regulation. I currently work for a government agency; the specifics of how things are worded can (and often do) matter.
It's also a question of established logic.
If the EU ruling says that buying a game means that you own a game, I'm inclined to see that as a hollow ruling when contemporary game companies claim that you're not buying the game -instead, you're buying a license to use the game.
In a similar way, buying a movie ticket does not mean that I have ownership over the movie; I only bought a license to be able to view the movie for a specified time and for a specified number of people. (FWIW, there is talk of streaming services trying to use this model to prosecute people for sharing their passwords for other people to watch movies on streaming services.)
I do agree with you that such things are sleazy tactics. I do not support doing business that way. As a member of a community engaged in a conversation, I'm simply expressing how I imagine that companies using sleazy tactics would continue to do so, even with the ruling in place.
