Today's changes to ToS: Bans on AI training, account sharing and "review bombing" added

Community Technical Support Gaijin.net Store, Gaijin Market, Merch Shop,Forum
1

A lot of people got a request to re-agree to ToS today. Just thought I’d review the most recent changes in the document for those who click through this stuff, comparing it to the last edit from June, 2025:

1. section 2.2 (Age Verification) is greatly expanded. New wording:

Spoiler

Verification and Age-Based Features. Gaijin may, at its sole discretion or or where required by applicable law, require the User to verify their age or provide information reasonably necessary to determine the User’s age or age category. Gaijin may also receive age-related information from third-party platforms, distributors or service providers where such information is made available. Gaijin may use such information to:

  • verify the User’s eligibility to access or use the Service(s);
  • determine whether parental or guardian consent is required;
  • enable, disable, restrict or otherwise tailor access to certain Service(s), features or functionality based on the User’s age;
  • apply age-appropriate safety measures; and
    -comply with applicable law.
    If the User fails to complete any required age verification process, fails to provide any information reasonably requested for such purpose, or is determined to be ineligible to access all or part of the Service(s), Gaijin may suspend, restrict or terminate access to the relevant Service(s) or features in accordance with these Terms.

2. section 3.5 (Ban on Account Sharing). An explicit line against account-sharing has been added: “Each Account is personal to the User and may not be shared with or used by any other person.”

Further, the ToS also details what Gaijin can make you do to prove you’re not account-sharing:

Spoiler

3.5.A. Gaijin may, at its sole discretion, require the User to complete reasonable security measures in order to create, access, recover or continue using an Account. Such measures may include identity verification, age verification, email verification, multi-factor authentication, secure device verification or other reasonable security procedures. Gaijin may temporarily restrict access to the Account or the relevant Service(s) until such measures have been completed to Gaijin’s reasonable satisfaction.

3. section 4.1 (use of Gaijin IP) adds a clause specifically prohibiting use for AI training without permission. “For clarity, this license does not permit the use of the Service(s), Game(s), or any related content, data, or materials for AI training, machine learning, database creation, model development, or similar purposes, unless expressly authorized by Gaijin in writing.” (repeated in greater detail in section 4.3.5)

4. section 8 (User conduct): New user conduct prohibition added to the list of don’t dos: “8.1.4. Circumventing or Manipulating the Service(s). Circumventing, manipulating or otherwise misusing the intended operation of the Service(s), including their mechanics, matchmaking, ranking systems or other functionality, in order to obtain an unfair or unintended advantage.”

5. section 12.3.2 (Dispute Resolution). Arbitration authority for USA and Canada changed from American Arbitration Association (the non-profit) to National Arbitration and Mediation (the company) and the stipulation arbitration for players in those countries has to take place in California has been removed.

6. EULA, section 3.2.3 (Malicious Use). Paragraphs on bots and third-party software amalgamated and expanded into:

Spoiler

use or attempt to use prohibited software, hardware or other technical means that automate gameplay, alter the Game(s) or their functionality, bypass technical restrictions or anti-cheat measures, provide an unfair advantage, or otherwise compromise the integrity or intended operation of the Game(s). This includes, without limitation, cheats, hacks, bots, macros, scripts, unauthorized modifications, spoofers, device emulators and virtual machines used to circumvent anti-cheat measures, DMA hardware and firmware, hardware identity modification tools and similar technologies;

Code of Conduct (which also prohibits this) has also been updated with similar more specific language.

7. EULA, section 3.2.11 (Bypassing Sanctions). New section added to the EULA explicitly forbidding going around sanctions that have been imposed on you as a player:

Spoiler

3.2.11. Bypassing sanctions. All Players are expected to respect the decisions made by the Administration. A Player must not attempt to evade, circumvent or interfere with a sanction, including by creating or using another Account, using an Account controlled by another person, concealing or altering device identity, using hardware or software spoofing tools, or employing any other technical or organizational means to regain access.

The matching Code of Conduct language (which already prohibited this) has also been updated.

That’s basically it.

15 Likes
2

There are also some additional changes to the Code of Conduct document of note:

1) Ban on account selling made more explicit. Language added: “Trading, selling, purchasing or otherwise transferring an Account may result in a temporary or permanent Game(s) access restriction, including deletion of the relevant Account, and is not limited to a Mute”

2) Ban on discouraging others made more explicit. Language added: " organize or participate in coordinated attempts to manipulate ratings or reviews of the Game(s) or related Service(s) (“review bombing”), or otherwise disrupt the Game(s) or its community."

3) Permanent muting removed. Conduct Code violations used to have “permanent Mute” as the worst thing that could happen to you in terms of being muted in-game/on forums, etc. That has now been changed on the worst offence worthy of a mute to “365 days.” Note this is different from a temporary or permanent game ban, which they can also still impose if the conduct offense is serious enough.

4) Misuse of complaint system change. New option for misuse of complaint system added to the existing options of temporary or permanent game ban. Now they can also (for a lesser offence): “Misuse of the complaint system may result in a temporary or permanent restriction on the Player’s ability to submit complaints.”

5) Griefing language change. Added to the things that count as griefing now (on top of the usual blocking, team killing, etc): “interfering with [other player] objectives or otherwise deliberately hindering their participation.”

6) New restrictions on virtualized environments. New section explicitly prohibiting use of virtualization to circumvent anticheat: “Restricted Technical Environments. Access to War Thunder sessions protected by the kernel-level anti-cheat system may be restricted if the Game(s) client is operated through virtualized environments or other technical configurations that are incompatible with, interfere with, or circumvent Gaijin’s security or anti-cheat measures. Players must not attempt to bypass such restrictions or disguise the nature of the execution environment. Any such attempt may be treated as circumvention of the anti-cheat system and may result in penalties applicable to cheating, including a permanent Game(s) access restriction.”

7) New restriction on collusion. New section explicitly prohibiting collusion with opponents. “Circumventing or Manipulating Gameplay. Circumventing or manipulating the Game(s), their mechanics, matchmaking, battles or intended operation for personal gain or to obtain an unfair advantage, such as by colluding with opponents or other Players.”

Privacy Policy Changes. Last big document that was changed today is the privacy policy. Lot of little changes, it’s a very extensive rewrite, just two I’d say are worthy of interest:

8) What data anti-cheat can collect specified: The new privacy policy details what personal data COULD be collected as part of anti-cheat efforts. (It does state elsewhere data for anti-cheat purposes is NOT retained for the majority of player):

Spoiler

Anti-Cheat Data. Our anti-cheat systems automatically collect and analyze technical data from your device to detect cheats, hacks, and other unauthorized software. This may include your IP address, game-related identifiers (such as your in-game name and account ID), hardware and device identifiers (such as device IDs, serial numbers), information about your operating system, information about game-related and operating system files and memory, information about running processes, services, drivers, applications, and other executable code relevant to cheat detection, limited visual data related to the game environment (such as screenshots), and file names and file paths associated with the above, which may incidentally include personal information such as your operating system username.

9) Removal of other users as people who are entitled to see your data: The following section of the privacy policy, stating what parts of your personal data is publicly shared with other users, has been removed entirely. Take that fwiw.

Spoiler

Gaijin Users. Other users of our Services may see some of your data when certain Services features allow for it. For example, your username, avatar (profile photo), and your linked account data (such as Steam, PSN, Apple Game Center, Google Play, Xbox account), which are visible to other players They can also view any content you publicly share within our Services and social network communities (such as public messages, uploaded files, etc.), as well as some of your game results (including in-game ratings, leaderboards, and achievements).

7 Likes
7

I think most of these changes are fine, but if the “age verification” changes are preparation for face scan and/or ID upload verification, especially via one of these external providers that keep getting hacked, it scares me a bit.

9 Likes
8

I believe this is all related to the chat and forums, per following:

“Violations of this Section may result in a temporary restriction on the Player’s ability to use text or voice communications within the Game(s) (“Mute”).”
“Where a Player’s violation history includes both common and grave violations, all violations will be counted cumulatively. The Administration will determine the applicable Mute based on the nature of the current violation, the Player’s previous violations and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Please note that the Mute durations listed above are standard guidelines. The Administration may impose a different or more severe sanction where justified by the nature, seriousness, recurrence or circumstances of the conduct, including a temporary or permanent Game(s) access restriction in severe cases.”

But cant entirely rule out that this might extend to reviews and comments made on 3rd party websites. How that would be enforcable, im not sure, and would be prone to misuse (just create an account with nickname of someone you hate and call for boycot, ez).

I mean even within EU law, you can theoretically be sued for review if its defamatory in nature, but you cannot be sued for negative review, if that makes sense.

It seems purposely ambiguous.

4 Likes
9

Doesn’t really seem like any “extreme” changes for the most part.
And again, with almost all changes that Gaijin has made to the game
and such things in the past, all of it has been brought on by the player’s
actions. So, not really much new in that regard . . . it is what it is . . and

Ya get what ya get . . . .

I personally do not see anything wrong with . . . “clarification” myself

I do hope that they can get it thru some player’s heads that making mass
“False” reports on players doesn’t do any good. It does not work like the
console systems where people can organize and mass report a player
and get them snactioned just out of spite/hate . . . that doesn’t fly here.

Yet many people try and do it anyway. And all it does is clog up the complaint
system, make more work for the GM’s and ultimately, can let so “wrongdoers”
slip thru the cracks as it were . . . just a pain. No one wants to get
“Review Bombed” by a bunch of petty goobers . . . lol

10

Yea, the throw-outs of the ‘Hope people just review bomb the game again’ needed to stop… It was just a nuclear bomb in ‘discussions’ on here or in chat to just ignore the advice from people on how to work around or address the issues.

It got tiresome, so it needed to be actionable.

12

So leaving a negative review - allowed or not?

2 Likes
13

It’s allowed but moaning about it in game and on the forums to encourage others at the drop of the hat like the champions of chaos who constantly have been doing that is no longer…

21

We have this rule since years already:

3.11. Users are not allowed to discuss the possibilities and methods of causing damage or losses to the Games, Administration, Website Managers, and other Users, including cheat programs, “bot” automation programs, ways to modify the client of the Games, vulnerabilities in the client and server parts of the Games, offering advantages in gameplay, and any other circumventing methods prohibited, directly or indirectly, by Gaijin EULA. Furthermore, the User may not encourage other Users to stop playing the Games or to avoid purchasing any content from the Gaijin.Net Store in any form, including by making threats or enforcing them.

So before you go any further, please be sure to re-read the rules.

6 Likes
23

Doesn’t change what I said, they were making out they couldn’t even leave a bad review because of the changes in here after I had distinctly said about the fact that it was those who used to complain and drop the ‘hope’ in the channels on the whim, without even listening to advice or trying anything.

1 Like
24

Stona, if I may have a question. Per the provisions in Gaijins code of conduct, chapter 2. FORBIDDEN CONTENT, which say following:

“Violations of this Section may result in a temporary restriction on the Player’s ability to use text or voice communications within the Game(s) (“Mute”). For the purposes of determining the applicable Mute, the Administration may classify violations as either common or grave, taking into account the content, context, severity and circumstances of the violation.”

and

“Where a Player’s violation history includes both common and grave violations, all violations will be counted cumulatively. The Administration will determine the applicable Mute based on the nature of the current violation, the Player’s previous violations and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Please note that the Mute durations listed above are standard guidelines. The Administration may impose a different or more severe sanction where justified by the nature, seriousness, recurrence or circumstances of the conduct, including a temporary or permanent Game(s) access restriction in severe cases.”

does this prohibition apply only to forums and game chat, or does Gaijin extend it to 3rd party websites as well?

25

Well, it’s academic. I pointed out, we had this rule here since years, it’s not new, per se.

Our media (forum, website comments, in game chat etc).

I mean, sooner or later Snail will rule the whole internet, but for now, his power is limited.

11 Likes
26

Thanks.

image (1)

3 Likes
27

They are probably adding this in case it become required in certain countries

28

As long as Gaijin does not test the player’s MENTAL age, most of us should be fine.

29

Just two points on that, with all due respect: the 3.11 rule as you quoted it is just the Forum rule. It would have no impact on in-game chat for instance, whereas the changes to the Code of Conduct prohibits “encouraging other Users to stop playing the game or purchasing” across all platforms.

Also, the Forum rule (which we did not have to re-consent to today) only says users may not use the Forum to “encourage other Users to stop playing the Games or to avoid purchasing any content”. This new line in the conduct code is the first explicit reference in Gaijin EULA/ToS/Conduct Code to “organizing or participating in coordinated attempts to manipulate ratings or reviews”, which is a different thing.

It also applies, according to today’s document, to “interacting with others, whether through chat, sharing ideas, creativity, or personal content”, which as worded could also be seen to, for instance, include things Community Content Creators might say on their personal channels, not just what people say in the Forum and In-game chat.

3 Likes
30

Im last person to defend gaijin, believe me, but I dont think personal content supports the interpretation that Gaijin can regulate what a player says on third-party platforms such as YouTube. That would be a very broad reading of the Terms, and it doesnt fit particularly well with the way the Terms define their scope.

TOS define “Service(s)” as digital products or offerings provided by Gaijin , including their Websites, Games, mobile applications, online platforms, Store, Marketplace, etc.

TOS also defines “Website(s)” as websites, webpages or web-based platforms operated or licensed by Gaijin.

YouTube, Reddit, Discord, etc. therefore dont fit inside that definition.

At the same time, Code of Conduct in the section concerning prohibited names and references explicitly states that the rule applies to game chats, game-related Services, “or any other medium involving prohibited content linked to the Game(s).” Gaijin therefore explicitly extends its scope of rules in one case, and not in the other.

It would be reasonable to think that if they wanted to sanction organizing boycots on third party websites, they would explicitly say so.

Otherwise, definition of “personal content” that would extend to Discord, Youtube etc. would create contractual restriction on what a player can say anywhere on the Internet, which would be kind absurd, especially given consumer protection law and the rules governing the interpretation of ambiguous contractual terms.

Just food for thought.

31

So I’m not sure section 1 of the Code of Conduct is relevant here, or the ToS. Those are separate things.

Section 2 is about Forbidden Content in Gaijin-controlled spaces, and I don’t see any reason to doubt Stona that it’s primarily here meant to be a restriction on what you say in the Forum and the game chat. “Personal content” IS an odd turn of phrase: it could have been a reference to WT.live content perhaps. At the very least the forbidden content has always to be attached in the method of communication to a clear Gaijin identity somehow, as otherwise they would have no clear account to mute or ban for it, goes without saying. But I also wouldn’t want to be identified as the “Organizer” of any negative review campaign (not exactly my style anyway) going forward, just to be on the safe side.

33

If Gaijin explicitly says in one provision that the rule applies to “game chats, game-related Services, or any other medium involving prohibited content linked to the Game(s), ” then it demonstrates that they are perfectly capable of explicitly extending a rule beyond Gaijin platforms when they intend to do so.

So if such a provision is lacking in relation to “personal content”, why would such rule now be interpreted as implicitly having that broader scope instead of requiring an explicit extension? An implicit extension to third party websites derived solely from the words “personal content” would run contrary to the definitions and structure of the terms used throughout other Gaijin related documents.

Sure, but that is a much more narrow and much more defensible concern than saying Gaijin can regulate anything a player says on their personal YouTube channel.

34

So again, Stona did clarify this, above. But to play devil’s advocate, it is trivially easy to think of a situation where someone could do something on their YouTube channel, something including gameplay footage running in the background that exposes their in-game identity, or otherwise uses in-game assets, and Gaijin deciding, yeah you know what, we’re gonna suspend that player account so there’s no more of that being made with our IP being used for the eye candy, making that person’s next WT video much harder to do. Code of Conduct and the EULA portion of the ToS are overlapping documents that would be used to cover that kind of player-suspension action as well.

It would have to be pretty egregious, but they clearly are reserving that right here.