For the benefit of people that can’t watch this horrible video:

This is really about them being able to change the already extremely vague terms of service and you having no recourse other than voiding your purchase if you don’t like it. There is some focus on a gun thing early on, but it’s just an example where they flip-flopped multiple times over the years based on vague wording in the ToS that was changed after the fact. Commercial modded server owners were the main ones that had to make changes because of that rule, often taking guns away from players that had them, but it’s generally enforced very inconsistently.

But the main thing they’re focusing on in the lawsuit is the mass deletion of legitimately bought Minecraft copies when they stopped Mojang account migration in 2023 (everyone that didn’t migrate then no longer owns Minecraft according to Microsoft; no refunds). That, too, was effectively a one-sided ToS change. And to make matters worse, the old ToS had an explicit clause that you could keep playing the game in singleplayer even without agreeing to any new ToS.

This lawsuit is being done in Sweden. I don’t know if this kind of ToS/contract validity has actually been tested there before.

I think this is the first time I ever watched a video at 0.5 speed. “this was done due to retention purposes for the video to maximize spread potential”. Yeeeaaaah. No. Checked reddit, it’s downvoted to the negatives over form. Checked a different place that would be all over this, entire topic is discussing the form and there’s not one mention of what it’s about because nobody got that far. The exact kind of person that might take time out of their day to join a class action is not going to watch this garbage. I think it’s good to have this tested, but I straight up don’t trust this guy. Supposedly maximizing views while getting zero information through to anyone is not going to help the cause.