Recommendations

Terms of (Ab)Use: An Analysis of GenAI Services

Cite as: Pandit, Harshvardhan J., Blankvoort, Dick A. H., Shaaban, Adel, Luccioni, Sasha, & Birhane, Abeba (2026). Terms of (Ab)Use: An Analysis of GenAI Services (preprint). 9th ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), Montreal, Canada. Zenodo. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2603.18964

We have identified the following recommendations based on our findings and analysis.

(potentially) unfair terms

  1. Our findings have shown that current GenAI terms contain potentially unfair clauses and practices as defined in UCTD and UCPD. This provides sufficient ground for Consumer protection authorities to investigate further;
  2. Academic and other researchers should conduct scientific analysis of GenAI provider's marketing and practices to assess implied capabilities against their total disclaim in terms.

lack of necessary Information

  1. GenAI service terms should only pertain to individual consumers and not be mixed with terms for enterprise customers or the provider's other services;
  2. GenAI providers should provide unambiguous information about the specific features, quality, and stability of the service to inform what the consumer's payments cover.

unworkable responsibilities put on consumers

  1. GenAI providers should provide contractual clarity to consumers on their degree of control over outputs;
  2. Consumer protection authorities should investigate the nature of GenAI services and the extent to which consumers can fulfil assigned responsibilities in terms;
  3. Changes to regulations may be needed to limit digital services distributing liabilities despite inability of consumers to control service functionalities.

asymmetric benefits of providers vs consumers

  1. GenAI Providers use of data (e.g. for training) should mean they have liability for it;
  2. GenAI Providers should not restrict users from using outputs under their responsibility;
  3. Terms should provide absolute clarity on whether a clause applies or not, and should not burden consumers with legal investigations beyond their ability.

good faith in terms

  1. GenAI Providers should ensure terms are compatible with the spirit and letter of EU consumer law by making them intelligible for consumers, providing all relevant terms together, and avoid contractual obligations on consumers that they are not equipped to fulfil;
  2. Consumer protection authorities should assess whether the terms follow their respective good faith interpretations and issue targeted guidance for GenAI.

imbalance in terms

  1. GenAI Providers should redraft their terms to ensure a balanced implementation of rights and obligations without detriment to consumers -- as required by EU law;
  2. Consumer protection authorities and policy makers should consider introducing additional terms and practices as unfair to tackle the specific challenges of responsibilities and balances within GenAI services, including potential rights regarding training opt-outs and restrictions on use of outputs.