Copyleaks Terms & Conditions: Legal Risks, Privacy Gaps, and Compliance Pitfalls Exposed | Erayaha

When We Examined Copyleaks’s Legal Framework: Four Critical Risks That Could Cost Millions

Imagine a scenario where a data breach exposes sensitive user content submitted for plagiarism checks. Under the current Copyleaks Terms & Conditions, unclear privacy obligations and liability disclaimers could leave users and the company exposed to regulatory fines up to €20 million under GDPR, as well as class-action lawsuits in the U.S. Our analysis of Copyleaks’s terms reveals four key legal and logical issues that, if left unaddressed, could result in substantial financial and reputational damage.

1. Ambiguous Consent and Data Processing Scope The terms state that by using the service, users consent to all privacy practices described, but the scope of data processing is not clearly limited or tied to specific legal bases (e.g., consent, contractual necessity, legitimate interest). This ambiguity increases the risk of non-compliance with GDPR and CCPA, exposing Copyleaks to regulatory penalties and user claims.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

By using the Service (the “Service” or “We/Us/Our”), you (“you” or “user”)expressly consent to the privacy practices describedcollection, use, and processing of your personal information solely for the purposes specified in this Statement, and only where a valid legal basis exists under applicable privacy laws (such as explicit consent, contractual necessity, or legitimate interest), with the scope of processing clearly defined herein.

Legal Explanation

The original clause is overly broad and does not tie data processing to specific legal bases or purposes, as required by GDPR and CCPA. The revision clarifies the scope and legal basis for processing, reducing regulatory risk and improving enforceability.

2. Overbroad Disclosure and Data Sharing Provisions Copyleaks reserves the right to disclose user information to comply with any legal requirement or order, including those from foreign authorities, without specifying safeguards or user notification. This could violate data transfer restrictions under GDPR and similar laws, risking fines and injunctions.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

We may also use alldisclose personal information we obtained from any source to comply with any legal requirementsonly when required by a valid and judicial and governmental ordersbinding order from a competent authority, issued by national or foreign authorities, if we believe we are required to comply with them. We may use and transmit the information accordingsubject to the applicable law. The term “applicable law” in this paragraph also includes orders from governmental organizations and courtsdata transfer restrictions (national and foreignsuch as those under GDPR). Where feasible, we will notify affected users prior to disclosure, unless prohibited by law.

Legal Explanation

The original clause is overbroad and does not specify safeguards for cross-border data transfers or user notification, risking non-compliance with international data protection laws and undermining user trust.

3. Limitation of Liability for Security Breaches The terms state that Copyleaks will not be liable for damages from unauthorized access if "reasonable security measures" were used. This blanket disclaimer may be unenforceable in many jurisdictions and could undermine user trust, especially if negligence is involved. Litigation costs for data breaches can easily exceed $5 million per incident.

Legal Analysis

critical Risk

Removed

Added

DespiteIn the aforementioned, there is a riskevent of unauthorized access to our database. In that case, so long as we have used reasonable security measures, weour liability will not be liablelimited only to the extent permitted by applicable law. We will not disclaim liability for damages caused by such unauthorized accessresulting from our negligence, willful misconduct, or for the transfer of Informationfailure to a third party due to such accesscomply with statutory data protection obligations.

Legal Explanation

The original blanket disclaimer may be unenforceable, especially where negligence or statutory breaches are involved. The revision aligns with legal requirements and preserves enforceability.

4. Insufficient User Rights and Redress Mechanisms While users are told they can review, correct, or delete their data, the process is vague and subject to Copyleaks’s discretion. There is no clear timeline or independent redress mechanism, which may fail to meet GDPR’s requirements for data subject rights and timely responses (usually within 30 days).

Legal Analysis

medium Risk

Removed

Added

You may review, correct, or request deletion of your personal information at any time by contacting us through the Personal Information we have about you on our websitedesignated channels. If the information we hold about you is incorrectWe will respond to such requests within 30 days, as required by applicable data protection laws, and provide an independent dispute resolution mechanism if you have the right to request its correction or deletionare dissatisfied with our response.

Legal Explanation

The original clause lacks a clear process, timeline, or independent redress mechanism, risking non-compliance with GDPR/CCPA requirements for data subject rights.

Conclusion: Proactive Legal Protection is Essential Our examination shows that Copyleaks’s current terms contain significant privacy, liability, and compliance gaps that could result in regulatory fines, litigation, and reputational harm. Addressing these issues with precise legal language and robust user protections is not just best practice—it’s essential risk management.

**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.**

**Are your contracts exposing your business to hidden regulatory risks? How would your company handle a multi-million dollar privacy lawsuit? What steps are you taking to ensure enforceable, compliant user agreements?**