You Promised “Safe.” They Promised Nothing. Guess Who Gets Sued?
Let me guess… you’re using third-party AI tools in your product.
Maybe it’s OpenAI’s API, maybe it’s a fine-tuned Anthropic model, maybe it’s something built by a twelve-person startup that just raised $40M to “redefine enterprise workflows.”
And somewhere, buried in their terms of service, it says:
“We are not responsible for any output generated by this system.”
Ok... Except your clients expect you to be.
Welcome to the AI liability mismatch—where your upstream contracts deny everything, but your downstream contracts promise the world. And that’s not just awkward. It’s legally fatal.
⸻
🔁 You Can’t Flow Down a Disclaimer You Never Got to Begin With
Here’s how the stack usually looks:
Your AI vendor: “This model might hallucinate, leak data, commit libel, or give your user a stroke. Not our problem.”
Your product: Wrapped in slick UX, connected to internal systems, branded as “safe” or “enterprise-ready.”
Your customer contract: “We provide accurate results. We’ll indemnify you for damages. Trust us.”
That’s not a contract stack. That’s a liability funnel—with you at the bottom, catching everything.
If your AI vendor disclaims all responsibility, and your customer expects full accountability, guess what?
You’re the breach.
⸻
🧨 The Legal and Reputational Risk Is Compounding
This isn’t theoretical. Let’s play it out:
Your AI assistant tells a user to delete the wrong file.
Or outputs confidential data from a different customer.
Or gives investment advice that tanks someone’s portfolio.
Or misdiagnoses a health condition, or flags the wrong person in a background check.
Your customer sues you.
You turn to your AI vendor. They point to the line in 6pt font that says:
“This product is experimental. Don’t use it for anything serious.”
Now you’re left arguing in court that you didn’t actually rely on the product you embedded in your own.
That’s not a defense. That’s malpractice.
⸻
🔐 You Promised Reliability. They Gave You Vibes.
Let’s be clear: most AI vendors aren’t actually enterprise-ready.
No audit logs
No enforceable SLAs
No indemnity
No input/output retention guarantees
No model update transparency
No clarity on training data (hello copyright landmine)
But founders keep integrating them anyway—and lawyers keep waving it through—because “everyone’s doing it.”
That’s not a legal strategy. That’s a class action prequel.
⸻
📉 VCs Should Be Nervous, Too
If you’re investing in a SaaS company that white-labels or resells AI tools with zero contractual protection, you’re not funding IP—you’re funding uninsured liability.
Ask:
Can they even get coverage with that vendor stack?
Have they mapped responsibility across their LLM integrations?
Do they have contractual fallback if OpenAI or Anthropic makes a model-breaking change?
Because once that downstream customer sues, and the AI vendor shrugs, there’s nowhere else to go but litigation—and a down round.
⸻
✅ What Real AI Contracts Should Start Doing
It’s time to rip up the old SaaS boilerplate. If you’re deploying or building with AI, your vendor contracts need:
🔒 Explicit Output Liability Carveouts
Not “we take no responsibility,” but: here’s exactly what you’re liable for, what you’re not, and what mitigation we expect.
🔁 Back-to-Back Indemnities
If you’re indemnifying your client for AI harm, your vendor better be indemnifying you.
📉 Downtime and Model Drift Clauses
What happens if the model updates and starts giving different answers? Who’s accountable for retraining, QA, or support?
📜 Audit Rights and Transparency Triggers
If something goes wrong, do you even have the right to inspect logs or know what version of the model was running?
📡 Notice and Termination Protocols
What if your vendor suddenly pulls a feature or changes the TOS? Can you terminate fast, or are you stuck holding the risk?
⸻
🔚 Final Thought: You Can’t Contract Around Reality
If your AI vendor gives you nothing but disclaimers, and your customer wants reliability, accuracy, compliance, and indemnity, you can’t fake that middle ground with good vibes and a privacy policy.
Someone has to own the risk.
If it’s not upstream, it’s you.
If it’s not you, it’s the person suing you.
If it’s no one? That’s not “distributed accountability.” That’s negligence.
This is the moment to renegotiate your vendor stack—or rebuild it entirely.
Because once the lawsuits start (and they will), judges and regulators aren’t going to care what your contract tried to say. They’ll look at the damage, the expectations, and who actually had control.
If you’re deploying AI and your contracts were written pre-GPT, they’re already obsolete. Let’s fix that—before someone else files first.
⸻
🤖 Subscribe to AnaGPT
3x a week [MWF], I break down the latest legal in AI, tech, and law—minus the jargon. Whether you’re a founder, creator, or lawyer, my newsletter will help you stay two steps ahead of the competition.
➡️ Forward this post to someone working in/on AI. They’ll thank you later.
➡️ Follow Ana on Instagram @anajuneja
➡️ Add Ana on LinkedIn @anajuneja