Alright, what are the damages?
Quick, c'mon, what are the damages?
What, there are none? Alright, most likely summary judgment
A summary judgment has nothing to do with the amount awarded.
As for the damages, those could be considerable if 2k was shown to have deliberately misled their customers about the product they were selling. I’d like to point out that you appear to have missed the words “if” and “knowingly” in the original post. Please note the words “could be” and “known” as laid out in this paragraph. This is the concept of intent, which would be either an aggravating or mitigating fact in our hypothetical lawsuit.
Also, keep in mind that our hypothetical lawsuits could be brought by the private citizens, governments, or both. In this case of the government, consumer protection laws and their penalties can be pretty severe against violators. While I agree with others on this thread that any type of lawsuit are slim possibilities, it could happen, and in the context of aggravating intent, could be financial painful for 2k.
You can't generalize about EULAs. Some US courts are cool with them. Some US courts aren't cool with them. They all have shot some down and upheld some. They've also all avoided precedent by claiming that their rulings are specific to the EULA at hand.
Leaving aside the fact that your first sentence is immediately contracted by your next set of statements (i.e., broad generalizations), I would disagree that “They've also all avoided precedent by claiming that their rulings are specific to the EULA at hand.” I am unaware of any ruling to do with EULA’s in which the judge qualified his judgment with such a statement, or inference of such a concept. In contract cases, it is extremely rare for a judge to do this. Law is not made for individuals, but for society as a whole, and rulings tend to follow this fundamental concept.
But you'd better believe just about any EULA can be upheld in part so long as its reasonable. Just about any EULA can be shot down in part if it is not reasonable.
Contracts which are void in part, can be declared void ab initio ie. Which, if you are involved in the “law” (as you put it), you should know, as has been contract law 101 for well over a hundred years.
There is also (legal) school of thought that has argued the EULA is an unconscionable contract as a whole as you are not presented with the contract until after the purchase and in such a manner as to make it impossible to recover your investment. Unconscionable contracts, by law, are completely void. This argument is still working its way through the court system.
Armchair attorneys need to cool it in this thread
J'accuse!