Gov/en/Portal:Terms/ToU-Worst-Clauses

💡 In simple words: Some apps and websites look fun and free, but hidden in their long "Terms of Use" are sentences that quietly take away your rights. It can feel like being offered a nice toy, then being told that to play you must give away your drawings, promise never to complain in a real court, and accept that the rules can change tomorrow without asking you. This page collects a few well-known examples of such one-sided sentences, so everyone can see them clearly. The goal is not to attack anyone, it is to show why fair, win-win terms matter, and how WikiDeal aims at helping people write terms that respect both sides.

🎯 In 20 seconds (expert summary): A symbolic, in-construction catalogue of recurring one-sided clauses found in online Terms of Use (broad content licences, forced arbitration with class-action waivers, unilateral change of terms, sweeping data sharing, "as is" liability dumps). Each entry pairs the clause pattern with why it is considered user-hostile and which watchdogs already document it (EFF, Terms of Service; Didn't Read). WikiDeal intends to use these examples to motivate ethical, win-win terms, not to issue legal rulings about specific companies.

ToU Worst Clauses

Element of the Terms & Policies portal. WikiDeal governance.

This page starts from a simple observation: many online services are attractive on the surface, yet their Terms of Use contain clauses that are win-lose rather than win-win. They serve the company and work against the everyday user. In the worst cases the user effectively becomes the product: signing up looks free, but the small print imposes conditions that few people would accept if they were stated plainly.

WikiDeal does not invent this critique. Independent organisations already document and denounce these practices. This page only lists a few symbolic examples to show, concretely, why WikiDeal aims at helping people use ethical, balanced terms of use.

Who already denounces abusive terms

Several watchdogs work on this, and they are the recommended starting points:

• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org) , a digital rights organisation that regularly criticises unfair contract terms, forced arbitration, and surveillance-driven clauses.
• Terms of Service; Didn't Read (ToS;DR) , a community project that reads and grades the Terms of Service of major services from A (best) to E (worst), flagging the problematic clauses one by one.

Top abusive clause patterns (in construction)

The table below is a starter Top list. It groups the clause by pattern, not by naming and shaming a specific company, because the same wording reappears across many services. The intention is to grow this toward a documented Top 5, then Top 10, with verified source extracts added progressively.

#	Clause pattern (extract idea)	Why it is abusive (win-lose)	Flagged by
1	Broad content licence , "you grant us a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable licence to use your content"	What you post (photos, texts, videos) can be reused, and even sub-licensed to third parties, far beyond running the service. You keep the title, the company keeps the value.	ToS;DR
2	Forced arbitration + class-action waiver , "all disputes are resolved by individual binding arbitration; you waive any class action"	You give up the right to go before a normal court and the right to join others in a group claim. Many small harms then become impossible to challenge in practice.	EFF, ToS;DR
3	Unilateral change of terms , "we may modify these terms at any time; continued use means acceptance"	The rules can change against you, sometimes with little or no real notice, and simply using the service again counts as agreeing.	ToS;DR
4	Sweeping data sharing , "we may share your personal data with third parties / partners" for purposes that are not essential to the service	Your data can be passed to advertisers or partners beyond what the service actually needs to function, turning users into a resource to be monetised.	ToS;DR
5	Liability dump , service provided "as is", "no warranty", "we are not liable for any damages"	Almost all risk is shifted onto the user, even when problems come from the provider, while the user still owes full obligations.	ToS;DR

Note: this Top is a work in progress. The extracts above describe recurring clause patterns; verbatim quotations with a precise source and date are to be added entry by entry, and verified before being treated as reliable.

Why this matters for WikiDeal

These examples illustrate the gap WikiDeal aims at closing. Where many platforms impose take-it-or-leave-it terms, WikiDeal intends to explore terms of use that are readable, balanced, and genuinely win-win for both parties. Listing the worst clauses is a way to make the contrast visible and to give the community concrete material to react to.

This connects to the wider Terms & Policies work:

• ToU Policies , a curated selection of good terms of use to encourage, by domain.
• ToU Deep Down , a deeper look into terms of use.
• ToU Denounce , reporting problematic terms.

How to contribute an example

Anyone can suggest an example for this list. A good entry includes: the clause pattern, a short extract, why it is considered abusive, and who proposed or imposed it as a condition of use. Sources from recognised watchdogs (EFF, ToS;DR) are preferred, and each extract should be checked before it is added.

Reference language: English. Starter page, content to be expanded with sourced examples.