Legal Risks in New Era Informatique's Terms & Conditions: A Case Study on Privacy, Consent, and Data Sharing | Erayaha

## When Privacy Promises Fall Short: Financial and Legal Risks in New Era Informatique’s T&C

Imagine facing a €20 million GDPR fine or losing customer trust overnight due to unclear privacy practices. Our analysis of New Era Informatique Pvt Ltd’s (NEI) Terms & Conditions reveals several high-impact legal and logical risks that could expose the company to regulatory penalties, litigation, and reputational damage.

1. Ambiguous Consent for Data Collection and Sharing NEI’s T&C state that accessing the site implies unconditional consent to collect domain names and, at times, personal information. However, the language is vague and does not specify the scope, purpose, or legal basis for data collection and sharing. This ambiguity creates a compliance gap with GDPR Article 6 and CCPA requirements, risking fines up to 4% of annual revenue.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

Your accessingaccess to our site implies yourdoes not constitute unconditional consent to allowfor the collection of your domain namespersonal data. At times, however, when we may need information from you, such asWe will obtain your name and address. When information is neededexplicit, we will try (but are not obligated) to let you know at the time ofinformed consent for any collection, how we will use the and processing of personal information, specifying the purposes and legal basis in accordance with GDPR and CCPA requirements.

Legal Explanation

The original clause is ambiguous and does not meet the explicit consent requirements under GDPR and CCPA. The revision ensures that consent is specific, informed, and documented, reducing regulatory risk.

2. Unclear Third-Party Data Sharing and Opt-Out Mechanism The terms allow NEI to share email addresses with “other reputable organizations” unless users respond to limit access. The opt-out mechanism is passive, and the definition of “reputable” is subjective. This exposes NEI to regulatory scrutiny for lack of explicit, informed consent and transparency, increasing the risk of class action lawsuits and regulatory penalties.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

Occasionally, we may make the e-mail addresses, of those who provide information, available to other reputable organizations whose products or services we think you may find interesting. In these cases, youWe will be offered an opportunity to limit access to your information. In case we do not receive any response from you to limit the access ofshare your email address or personal information with third parties for marketing or other purposes without your explicit, it shall be deemed that youprior, and informed consent. You will be provided with a clear, affirmative opt-in mechanism and the ability to such distribution of your information as mentioned abovewithdraw consent at any time.

Legal Explanation

The original clause relies on passive opt-out and vague definitions, which do not meet GDPR or CCPA standards for informed, affirmative consent. The revision ensures compliance and reduces litigation risk.

3. Lack of Obligation to Notify or Obtain Consent for Sensitive Data Uses The T&C repeatedly state NEI will “try (but are not obligated)” to inform users about data usage. This discretionary approach violates GDPR’s requirement for clear, affirmative consent and transparency, especially for sensitive or new data uses. Failure to notify or obtain consent can result in significant legal exposure and customer claims.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

When information is needed, we will try (butWe are not obligated) to letinform you know at the time of collection, about how we will use theyour personal information will be used, including the purposes, recipients, and retention periods, in accordance with applicable privacy laws.

Legal Explanation

The original clause makes notification discretionary, which is non-compliant with GDPR Article 13 and similar regulations. The revision mandates transparency and user notification.

4. No Verification of Data Source or User Identity NEI disclaims responsibility for verifying the source of personal data, assuming all data is provided by the user unless challenged within 15 days. This creates a loophole for unauthorized or fraudulent data submission, potentially violating data protection laws and exposing NEI to identity theft claims and regulatory investigations.

Legal Analysis

medium Risk

Removed

Added

You also understand that we are under no obligationWe will take reasonable steps to verify the source from which theand authenticity of personal information about you is provided to us, and they are deemed to be provided by youwill promptly investigate and rectify any unauthorized or fraudulent submissions upon notification, unless you manifest to us within a period of fifteen days from the date of providing of such information to us, to our satisfaction, that the information was provided to us without your free consentin compliance with applicable data protection laws.

Legal Explanation

The original clause creates a loophole for unauthorized data submission and shifts the burden to users. The revision aligns with data protection best practices and legal obligations to prevent identity misuse.

Conclusion: Proactive Legal Safeguards Are Essential Our examination shows that NEI’s current T&C lack critical privacy protections, clear consent mechanisms, and robust data governance. These gaps could result in regulatory fines, costly litigation, and loss of customer trust. Proactive legal review and precise contract language are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure compliance.

This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For actual legal guidance, consult with a licensed attorney. This assessment is based on publicly available information and professional legal analysis. See erayaha.ai’s terms of service for liability limitations.

How often do you review your privacy terms for regulatory compliance?
Are your data sharing practices transparent and defensible in court?
What would a major privacy breach cost your business in fines and lost revenue?