Terms of Service Auditor
When launching a new product, onboarding a new client, or conducting a periodic legal audit of website terms.
A website's Terms of Service is the contract every user accepts, yet it is often copied from a template and never revisited as the business, its data practices, and the law evolve. A periodic audit checks whether the acceptance mechanism is actually enforceable, whether the arbitration and liability clauses survive consumer-protection scrutiny, and whether required provisions for the company's specific model are present rather than assumed.
This kind of structured, clause-by-clause review is a natural fit for Claude. Feed it the existing terms along with the business type, target users, jurisdictions, and data collected, and it returns a findings report that flags enforceability gaps, missing provisions, and risky language, with suggested fixes and the legal rationale for each. It turns a tedious read-through into a focused worklist you can act on, freeing your time for the judgment calls.
Treat the audit as an issue-spotting first pass, not a compliance opinion. Claude can miss jurisdiction-specific rules and will not know your client's full risk posture, so verify every finding against current authority and tailor the recommendations before relying on them. The output is attorney work product to refine, not legal advice and not a finished set of terms to publish.
The Prompt
I represent the business that publishes the terms below. Audit them for enforceability and compliance. <terms> [PASTE THE FULL TERMS OF SERVICE AND ANY INCORPORATED POLICIES] </terms> Business type: [e.g., SaaS, e-commerce, marketplace, social media] Target users: [CONSUMERS / BUSINESSES / BOTH] Jurisdictions: [WHERE USERS ARE LOCATED] Data collection: [WHAT DATA IS COLLECTED] Acceptance flow: [HOW USERS ACCEPT, e.g., checkbox at signup, link in footer] Review for: 1. Formation: is the acceptance mechanism enforceable (clickwrap vs. browsewrap)? 2. Arbitration: enforceability, class waiver, opt-out, mass-arbitration risk, and fee provisions 3. Limitation of liability: is the cap reasonable and enforceable in consumer agreements? 4. User content: are IP rights properly licensed, and is the license scope appropriate? 5. Termination: are grounds clear, and is there adequate notice? 6. Privacy integration: does it reference the privacy policy correctly and fit applicable state privacy laws for [JURISDICTIONS]? 7. DMCA and copyright provisions: are the safe harbor requirements met? 8. Auto-renewal and cancellation terms against applicable state automatic-renewal laws for [JURISDICTIONS] 9. Consumer protection and international compliance (for example, GDPR and UK consumer law, if applicable) 10. Missing provisions for this business type For each issue, quote the language, explain the risk, and provide fix language. Name the governing rule or statute only if you are certain of it; otherwise write [AUTHORITY: VERIFY]. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.
Example Output
An audit report with compliance findings, enforceability assessment for key provisions, and recommended revisions.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
TERMS OF SERVICE AUDIT: Northstar Marketplace, Inc. Business type: consumer-facing marketplace (US + EU users) | Reviewed: v3.1 FINDING 1: Formation / Acceptance [SEVERITY: HIGH] Language: "By using the Site you agree to these Terms." Issue: This is browsewrap. Courts often decline to enforce browsewrap absent conspicuous notice and assent. Fix: Implement clickwrap, an unchecked checkbox at signup reading "I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy," with both linked. Retain a timestamped record of each user's accepted version. FINDING 2: Arbitration Clause [SEVERITY: MEDIUM] Issue: Clause requires arbitration but omits a class-action waiver and a clear opt-out, and does not address the state-specific notice some jurisdictions require for consumer arbitration. Fix: Add a conspicuous class-waiver and a 30-day opt-out; confirm enforceability in each consumer's home state. FINDING 3: Limitation of Liability [SEVERITY: MEDIUM] Issue: Caps all liability at $0. A zero cap may be deemed unconscionable in consumer agreements in several states. Fix: Cap at fees paid in the prior 12 months and carve out claims that cannot be waived by law. FINDING 4: User Content License [SEVERITY: LOW] Issue: License grant is "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide," which is broader than the service requires. Fix: Narrow to the scope needed to operate and promote the service. MISSING PROVISIONS: DMCA designated-agent notice; EU/UK consumer-rights disclosures; governing-law and venue clause. Note: Verify all state and EU/UK requirements against current law before publishing.
Tips
- •Clickwrap (an affirmative checkbox) is far more enforceable than browsewrap (continued use = acceptance).
- •Check arbitration terms against the rules of the provider you name and any state-specific notice requirements.
- •DMCA safe harbor requires a designated agent registered with the Copyright Office and kept current.
- •Version the terms and retain records of which version each user accepted.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should I run a Terms of Service audit?
Audit terms before a product launches, when onboarding a client whose terms you have not reviewed, after the business changes its data practices or adds a new revenue model, and on a periodic cadence as consumer-protection and privacy law shift. The prompt asks for business type, jurisdictions, and data collected so the review reflects the company's actual exposure rather than a generic checklist.
Can I publish the audited terms exactly as Claude returns them?
No. The output is an issue-spotting first pass, not finished terms or a compliance opinion. Verify every flagged provision against current authority in each relevant jurisdiction, confirm Claude has not missed state-specific rules, and tailor the suggested language to the client's risk tolerance. The attorney remains responsible for the terms that go live.
How do I get the most useful audit?
Be specific about the business model, where users are located, whether they are consumers or businesses, and exactly what data is collected. Paste the full terms rather than a summary. Ask Claude to rate each issue by severity and to flag where it is uncertain about current law, so you can prioritize verification on the highest-risk items.
Is it ethical to run client terms through an AI tool?
Generally yes, with appropriate care. ABA Formal Opinion 512 permits AI use where the lawyer supervises the output, verifies accuracy, and protects client confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6. Public terms are usually not confidential, but avoid pasting nonpublic business details or client identifiers into consumer tools without suitable data protections, and review every finding before relying on it.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.