Anthropic does a somewhat similar thing. If you visit their ToS (the one for Max/Pro plans) from a European IP address, they replace one section with this:

Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we (and our Providers) have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.

It's funny that a plan called "Pro" cannot be used professionally.

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms

▲

giobox 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ha out of curiosity I loaded that same consumer terms URL on both a USA and a UK VPN exit node - sure enough, the UK terms inject that extra clause you quoted banning commercial usage that is not present for USA users.

diff of the changes between US and UK:

https://www.diffchecker.com/BtqVrR9p/

There's the usual expected legal boilerplate differences. However, the UK version injects the additional clause at line 134 that has no analog in the US version.

▲

rkagerer 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wow, if you brought a paper contract to court that mutated itself depending which way you look at the paper, I wonder what a judge would think of that?

Personally I would crumple it up and pitch it out the window. I don't know why they can't simply be clear about what clauses apply to which geographies. An IP address should not be assumed as a reliable indicator of the jurisdiction in which an end-user resides. (Eg. In addition of VPNs's and unexpected routing, what happens if you travel?)

	▲	adonovan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I once wrote a contract document in PostScript that changed the wording based on the date. Two parties could cryptographically sign an agreement in the document, which would change when printed on a later date. One of the reasons we don’t use PostScript so much any more.

▲

graemep 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the Uk there seem to be separate commercial and consumer terms.

In the UK the consumer terms say its subject to English law and the courts of the UK jurisdiction you live in.

The commercial terms say that in the UK, Switzerland and the EEA there will be binding arbitration by an arbitrator in Ireland appointed by the President of the Law Society of Ireland.

▲

giobox 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The UK commercial terms explicitly do not apply to individual user plans. The US also has a separate terms sheet for commercial plans.

We are comparing like for like - an individual user using a Claude Pro subscription. A US user can use it for commercial use and be in compliance with the terms, the UK user cannot.

▲

conductr 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> A US user can use it for commercial use and be in compliance with the terms, the UK user cannot.

But why? My guess is the liability exposure is what they’re trying to control. So you probably can if you’re ok with no liability. It’s still noncompliant to how they wrote it but I would guess it’s the motivation. Unless they really just want to force the UK to pay for all commercial uses, which I suppose is possible.

	▲	graemep 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think its because the law in the UK limits exclusions of liabilities in consumer contracts far more than in business contracts (in general consumer law has a LOT of protections that do not apply to business contracts). If you look at the clauses excluding liabilities they are very different. I think the same applies to many other countries so they will also have separate consumer contracts.

▲

tmtvl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It'd be a dream come true if the TOS said code generated by Claude is licensed under the AGPL.

▲

SoftTalker 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Software in general has disclaimed any warranties or fitness for purpose for as long as I can remember. This is nothing new.

▲

mcmcmc 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Will be interesting to see if those still hold any weight (in the US at least) after the latest Meta rulings established defective design as a valid reason to sue big tech for damages

	▲	dylan604 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not not set yet though. It hasn't made it to appeals yet.

▲

chrisjj 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Software in general has disclaimed any warranties or fitness for purpose

This is not such a disclaimer. If Copilot fails its purpose of entertaining you, you can sue. /i

▲

wat10000 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Prohibiting the user from using it for any commercial or business purposes is definitely new!

▲

klez 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Have you really never seen any software saying "for non-commercial use only"?

	▲	flawi 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When I'm paying for said software? No, I don't think I have.
	▲	wat10000 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Only when it's a free/cheap consumer version of something with a pricey business version.

▲

naikrovek 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

show me any that have claimed that they were for entertainment purposes only. sql server has never had that in its EULA. The GPL does not say that the software is for entertainment purposes only.

▲

phyzome 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not what this is, though.

▲

jrecyclebin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, except that, in this case, Copilot really is for entertainment purposes only.

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

rubyfan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's only called Pro so they can charge you a Pro rate.

	▲	biker142541 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Should just be called the “Funsies” and “More Funsies” plans

▲

lenerdenator 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, there's your rationale as to why AI cannot replace you.

When sh!t hits the fan, Anthropic will immediately point to this clause. Who knows, maybe a court would see it as valid.

Meanwhile, your customer (and thus, your management) is looking for someone to blame for excrement making contact with the impellers. And that someone's gonna be you.

▲

wowoc 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, OpenAI doesn't seem to have clauses like this. Europeans are allowed to use it for commercial purposes under the ToS. (But check it yourself, I'm not a lawyer).

I reimplemented my startup idea from scratch with Codex a few months ago, just for peace of mind.

	▲	tjmtjmtjm 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Honest question, what peace of mind does this give you? If my idea could be implemented from scratch by one of these agentic harnesses I would be concerned about the viability of it more than anything.

▲

jmalicki 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you have limited funds to take in a lawsuit realistically the worst they can do is fire you, it's not like being blameable somehow makes you more valuable.

▲

throwawaytea 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Employees often make mistakes that cost companies thousands of dollars. And there's no shortage of stories where employees cost companies tens of thousands and millions.

When a construction guy messes up measurements and thousands of dollars of work has the be removed and redone, no one thinks of taking the employee to court. Why would you want to take your Ai to court?

	▲	antihipocrat 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When the construction worker messes up a job that then causes injury or damages the property they absolutely get sued. The state can even get involved if the mistake is deemed criminal negligence. In your example the owners will often take the construction company or small business owner to court. Most trades people negotiate and redo the work for free or much reduced cost to avoid this. In office settings if you expose PII you will likely be fired.
	▲	hubertdinsk 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		what the hell are you on about? Have you ever been employed? Employees do got reprimanded because of their mistakes. Employers just don't sue via the courts for the same reason you don't sue your spouse first thing when they break a plate. They settle via internal penalties first. (Not only that, employees who got a reprimand too heavy handed can sue back. Plenty of cases around.) "AI" company provides a service. They might or might not be adequate, that's not the point, the point is that the ability to sue them must always be on the cards if the agreed upon terms aren't met.