So I'm going to answer this thread slightly out of order, in order of what I figure people's actual interest in these answers are. (Hint: Lochner is last).

So for information tracking generally (this is for the specific types of information collection that get called out in the Privacy Policy), our goal is to just look at our users in the aggregate. We're not constructing individual profiles for people, or tying back. We're interested in just answering very general questions: "How old are people playing LoL?" "What is the gender split between players? Etc."

On the pixel component, when we say tracking "where you're from", we mean, in a very literal sense, how did you get to leagueoflegends.com? Some traffic, especially signups, comes from advertisers. The tracking pixel is basically how they claim credit for a referral. These are very limited glimpses, basically: What got you to our site, and where did you go when you left? (Which is also available via Google, btw). But that's all we see, your limited interaction with our system.

There's more granular information as to what specifically we see, what third parties see, and what we don't ever collect in the policy. What I guarantee you is that there are no surprises.

....

And as for Lochner, well, if you're using "anti-canonical" then you're almost certainly a Volokh reader. The theme over there tends to be that it's more nuanced than an a Keynesian vs. free market litmus test. I get that to an extent, but at the same time I think we're trying to give it more credit than it deserves (I've even seen that spin applied to Dred Scott, which is pretty messed up, imo).

At the end of the day Lochner is based on a simple philosophy: That two equal parties make a contract, and that meeting of the minds isn't subject to second-guessing by courts or any other government branch. That is great in theory, but those parties are rarely equal. At the end of the day, judges need to consider the practical effects of a ruling - and I don't think you could look at the practical reality of employment/contracting (whether in 2012 or certainly in 1905) and say "that makes sense".

Or let's put this a different way. There are undoubtedly provisions in our ToU, and in the ToU of pretty much every game or online service company, that strike you as unfair. It's not the whole document, but there's a thing here, and a thing there. If Lochner were still good law... it would be considerably worse. :P

But what if I don't want you guys to know that after leaving leagueoflegends.com, I go directly to pornhub, do not pass go, and do not collect $200?

Thanks for the response! (Also: I looked you up, and it seems deeply appropriate that Brolaf went to UVA.)

Reasonable enough. I just took that survey myself today, from the main page.

However, I do have a follow-up question: is Riot getting this sort of demographic (etc.) data solely from voluntary sources, like surveys? It sounds like the answer is "yes", but I'd feel silly not to ask while I have you here.

This is very reassuring. Thank you.

That tie-back to ToU agreements is pretty pro. +1. (In short, I am also pretty skeptical of the pro-Lochner camp. I think you can distinguish "right to contract" from "right to privacy" without having to make policy arguments. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to policy arguments, especially where they relate to issues, like commerce and the regulation thereof, that come up in the rest of the document and are clearly of constitutional importance.)


I would like to hear more about the arbitration clause, if possible. I really can't imagine ever having to sue Riot, but I like you guys and it would warm my heart to see you taking an industry lead in this area. Ridiculous boilerplate "the user forfeits all rights ever" arbitration clauses make me kind of mad, and I suspect you share a bit of that feeling. I know that the courts and the legislature are getting more pro-business here, and maybe that has beneficial policy effects, but I don't think the class action system is so broken that it's a good thing for companies to put in arbitration clauses that basically mean "people with valid claims will probably never be able to sue us because we've made it too costly for them."

That's why you can always sue someone even after accepting things like a eula, ToS, or other type of contract. My great uncle (lawyer) made millions from lawsuits like that.

You don't need tracking pixels for that. Just look through you web logs for the referer header the browser sent. (or not if the user used a plugin/addon to block sending referer headers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer
Tracking pixels would only be relevant if you want to look more than one step back.

This ^ - you didn't even address it in your post Lomar

Precisely what I was wondering. Do I need to start using Tor to browse the LoL forums? Depending on how much and how well this is tracked it could become a target for hackers seeking information on say, political or famous persons. Regardless the fact you can see where we go when we leave LoL seems like a clear invasion of privacy unless you provide full anonymity which, seeing as you are tracking the information in the first place, I doubt you can guarantee. Doesn't the tracking of internet browsing fall under some wire tapping law?

So a couple points on arbitration, they've been floating around so I'll just get to them in this reply:

- Arbitration location is flexible. As you'll see in the final text, arbitration can be, at your option, in your hometown. No one has to truck out to LA.
- We use AAA for arbitration. Selection of arbitrators will be according to that ruleset - which is mutual.

At this point no opt-out is planned. There are pros and cons to court and to arbitration, and other posts in this thread have done a pretty good job of outlining that. It's interesting that your concern is that arbitration takes this outside the court system and is somehow a violation of your rights. The Supreme Court is actually the group that sanctioned arbitration in a whole line of cases (AT&T v. Concepcion being the most recent). Most of those are split decisions, but it's pretty easy to say that Justice Scalia, at least, would really disagree with you.

Also, I think you have a much rosier view of how the legal system "should" work vs. how it actually does. But hey, reasonable minds can disagree.

Above, I wrote:

Based on your reply here, it sounds like this is a pretty "good faith" arbitration scheme. I appreciate that.

I myself wouldn't be quick to cite Scalia to support a decision as pro-consumer, but I also happen to agree that consenting to arbitration isn't obviously contrary to the spirit of our judicial rights. If people can contractually agree that all disputes will be settled by a foreign judiciary, why not a private third-party arbitrator? Of course, it does depend on the details of the arbitration terms.