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:<p><i>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.</i><p>It's funny that a plan called "Pro" cannot be used professionally.<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms</a>
Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."
My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense.<p>Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.
On the other hand: imagine someone putting "by agreeing to this, you owe us $1,000,000,000 - unless you opt out in writing within 90 days" halfway down the 100-page EULA of some cookie-cutter smartphone app.<p>It is not at all uncommon for such absurd contract terms to be unenforceable - especially in B2C contracts, although it might even be tricky for B2B clickthrough ones.<p>The idea being that most contracts are fairly standard, so a lot of people will just skim through them. Putting a landmine in them is obviously in bad faith, so making it enforceable would basically make it impossible to do any kind of business at all.
FullStory just tried to pull this with their renewal. We had a mult-year contract that started with a two-page order form, on which the words "renewal" or "cancellation" never once appear. During negotiations, it was never discussed that the plan would renew, or that there was a cancellation window. Instead, buried at the very bottom of the form (which they send via CongaSign, and wasn't clickable or obvious), was a line about their subscription agreement being linked to their terms and conditions page. On THAT page, they mention the plan will auto renew and must be cancelled with 60 days notice.<p>We cancelled at T-45 or so days before renewal, having determined it wasn't a fit for our client anymore, and they insisted "well, actually, you've renewed anyway!" which, no, we haven't. Absolutely absurd to try to "clickwrap" buried renewal terms in a 20+ page T&C/privacy document rather than as a material point of fact on the actual order form being executed.<p>Feels like the height of absurdity to try to bully your client into forcing them to use your services against their will when they still gave ample notice that they were cancelling and when there was no material loss to the business, but it's always felt like their revenue team has been unhinged in general: exploding offers, insane terms, super high-pressure sales... part of the reason we left them in the first place.
On the other other hand, they can put whatever they want in there, and because they've forced everything into arbitration with "third party" mediation and carved out their own little niche of the justice system, they'll never actually go to court, they'll just settle and evolve their ToS and contracts and word games accordingly.
I wish we lived in more of a "spirit of the law" world than a "letter of the law" world, where everything needs to be spelled out, but we don't. A small minority of people enjoy Rules Lawyering their way through life, insisting on trying to "gotcha" counterparties who are acting in good faith, so as a consequence, we all have to be Rules Lawyers and everything needs to be spelled out.
We live in neither. Many things spelled out are unenforceable. Maybe things not spelled out are implied.<p>We live in a world where advertising boneless chicken does not actually mean the chicken need not have bones in them.
No, you don’t. It only sounds nice. In practice this enables all kinds of spontaneous prosecution with any possible motive.
Theoretically, courts and judges exist precisely to balance the word and the spirit, and find and judge the actual intent. In practice, I'm in awe that good judgments still happen, despite everything.
When the contract is purposefully obtuse and hard to understand, that should be a valid legal defense.<p>When it's huge, falls upon people that can't justify a lawyer, and keeps changing all the time, one shouldn't even need to claim it. It should be automatically invalid.
> Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.<p>Seems pretty clear to me, do you really think people need a lawyer to understand that?
The only thing "clear" about that License agreement is it contradicts all their other marketing about Copilot.<p>So either that document is fraudulent or everyone else at Microsoft is committing fraud daily.<p>Examples from the first search result:
<a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/microsoft-365-copilot-video-tutorials-25a1b328-79be-4e8a-af96-1f894e52bcf6" rel="nofollow">https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/microsoft-365-copi...</a><p>Support page with ~25 tutorials provided by Microsoft about how to "Create a document with Copilot" or "Create a branded presentation from a file" or "Start a Loop workspace from a Teams meeting".<p>Do you actually believe that creating branded presentations (from Microsoft's own examples) is something people do for "entertainment purposes"?
If Copilot is for entertainment purposes only then why is <a href="https://office.com" rel="nofollow">https://office.com</a> all about how you can use Copilot, and closes with the small print "Copilot Chat in the Microsoft 365 Copilot app is available for Microsoft 365 Enterprise, Academic, SMB, Personal and Family subscribers with a work, education, or personal account."<p>Why would they include a product for entertainment purposes only in the product they sell to large companies for doing work?
There are 1698 words before that phrase.<p>Granted that this one document has a surprisingly clear language, but no, it's still not reasonable. Also, it was changed less than 6 months ago.
Sure, if you make that clear in all of your marketing rather than lying your ass off and then trying the "lol we didn’t really mean it" defense.
If it’s in a locked cabinet in the downstairs bathroom with the ‘out of order’ sign on the door, guarded by a leopard?
"Our software developers clearly were negligent, but we stashed some bullshit legalese saying 'No warranty express or implied' into a document no one will read so our bug-infested software is completely OK."<p>People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
As far as I can tell, this is only for the free personal plan, not any of the business offerings (ie not Copilot for M365) and Github Copilot is under a separate set of terms.<p>“These Terms don’t apply to Microsoft 365 Copilot apps or services unless that specific app or service says that these Terms apply.”<p>Think of Copilot being a suite of different products under the same overall banner and it starts to make (a bit) more sense.
I can hear the lawyers huddled around a conference table rolling the bones and chanting the sacred words to come up with that "get out of trouble free" card. It told your son he had terminal cancer and should kill himself... sorry, it clearly says for Entertainment Purposes only.
FYI: This is only for the "Cortana replacement" Copilot, not the other Copilots. This language doesn't appear in GitHub Copilot's Consumer Agreement, for example.
I might be alone with this, but I don't find it very entertaining.
The section titled<p>> IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & WARNINGS<p>Tells us:<p>> You may stop using Copilot at any time.<p>That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.
I am working really hard to not <i>start</i> using Copilot.<p>And belive me, if you use any Microsoft products or services they really make it hard to avoid accidentally using the damn thing.<p>Including adding it to your office plan and then charging you 2x.
Gotta love how they moved the "Create Email/meeting" buttons in Outlook mobile and stuck the Copilot button there so that you will hit it accidentally.
I’m a Mac user and the only way to get Office 365 is a monthly subscription. Since there’s no subscription that doesn’t include CoPilot and since they hiked the price with the excuse that they’d added this thing I didn’t want, I just cancelled my subscription. A customer lost: hardly an issue, but if enough people do it, maybe they’ll get a clue and stop ramming this unwelcome abomination down our throats.
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time.
But according to the Birmingham modifications of 1973, subsection 12.b, stroke 7a, a player so conceding is not deemed to have <i>actually</i> conceded unless they be within a finite number of hops from Mornington Crescent station at the time of the concession.
Like when i went to my github account to withdraw all copilot consents - which i never used anyway<p>just to be greeted with an email that welcomed me to copilot and the free plan.
No button or link to disable the thing.
> No button or link to disable the thing.<p>The line i initially quoted:<p>> You may stop using Copilot at any time.<p>Was incomplete. It continues with what initially appears to be a non sequitur:<p>> You may stop using Copilot at any time. If you want to close your Microsoft Account, please see the Microsoft Services Agreement.<p>It may not be a non sequitur, but may well be the only way to "opt out" of Copilot.
I doubt it is odd, I suspect almost every ToS has something similar.
I've been reading Jurassic Park recently. Hammond's monologue about expensive technology only being fundable via Entertainment seems very relevant.
Hilariously, immediately after I read this, my boss sends a global message to us reminding us that we 'need to be trying to integrate copilot into our jobs.'
a blanket "entertainment only" disclaimer likely wouldn't survive scrutiny for a product actively/relentlessly marketed as a productivity tool
They unironically relaunch it as XBox Copilot tomorrow...
> Other people may send similar Prompts as yours, and they could get the same, similar, or different Responses and Creations.<p>This is why I'm skeptical about all this AI coding thing...
Do not taunt Happy Copilot Ball.
I thought the title was a joke until I actually read the thing.
Just today afternoon, I did read a bit trough Adobes EULA and I saw most of Adobes Software is not allowed to be used from children. I guess most (todays) software are not allowed for children because of the whole user tracking and spying.
I thought a year ago when I bought a new laptop with 365 and Copilot integrated that they would make better use of AI and its integration. I can't think of when I actually used it and cancelled any subscription associated with it. On the otherhand, I use ChatGPT all the time.
Worth noting that this is in the terms of use as of October 2025. This isn't "new".
Can I get this on a sticker to pass out anyone tries to shove copilot down my throat at work?<p>Maybe a shirt, could sell it on the Microsoft store even. Now that would be entertainment.
To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.
If it is for entertainment purposes only, why am I not laughing when I use it?
How does this affect Copilot in VS 2022 / VS 2026? Because this is kind of insulting to a professional. I really wish Microsoft would learn to name things correctly. There's Copilot the ChatGPT-like service, then there's Copilot for Visual Studio which is not the same as far as I can tell.
<a href="https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-your-ide" rel="nofollow">https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-y...</a><p>They do seem to word this at a more professional level in this context (the terms linked are for individuals using Copilot in Windows, probably?)
> Copilot may include advertising
> Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.<p>> We don’t own Your Content, but we may use Your Content to operate Copilot and improve it. By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf.<p>lol
Guys they're just disclaiming warranties relax
No way that holds up in court when they are marketing it for things other than entertainment.
Another bingo square for that 'AI is gambling' post (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428541">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428541</a>)
They're just trying to pick up that Disney deal (Clippy rhymes with Mickey)
The ownership section is hilarious (tldr your content is not ours, but we can do anything you could do with it except being liable)<p>"We don’t own Your Content... By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf."
It worked for Fox News
So they finally admit that it's just a toy? Where does that leave all the mega-"productive" developers?
I should ask it to produce an image of Satya Nadella in Maximus garb yelling "are you not entertained?!"
Non-exact software will be causing sleepless nights for non-exact legal writers.
i like the way that when ai does something good of course the people who built it should make a lot of money but when it does something bad no one is responsible
If it's for entertainment purposes only then why is it being shoved down our throats at every opportunity???
Ah yes, the new "for tobacco use only" of tech.
I told you so, dear LLM evangelists.
Seems fine to me for the consumer facing product terms lol