Question for Lomar:
Lochner -- justifiably part of the "anti-canon" or a reasonable doctrine improperly distinguished from the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment protections?
It's a burning question.
... also what are you talking about when you say "pixel tracking"? When are you tracking "where we come from"?
And third: tell me more about this arbitration clause and what you think its legal effect is.
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