Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only (microsoft.com)
270 points by lpcvoid 5 hours ago
wowoc 2 hours ago
Anthropic does a somewhat similar thing. If you visit their ToS (the one for Max/Pro plans) from a European IP address, they replace one section with this:
Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we (and our Providers) have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.
It's funny that a plan called "Pro" cannot be used professionally.
giobox an hour ago
Ha out of curiosity I loaded that same consumer terms URL on both a USA and a UK VPN exit node - sure enough, the UK terms inject that extra clause you quoted banning commercial usage that is not present for USA users.
diff of the changes between US and UK:
https://www.diffchecker.com/BtqVrR9p/
There's the usual expected legal boilerplate differences. However, the UK version injects the additional clause at line 134 that has no analog in the US version.
graemep an hour ago
In the Uk there seem to be separate commercial and consumer terms.
In the UK the consumer terms say its subject to English law and the courts of the UK jurisdiction you live in.
The commercial terms say that in the UK, Switzerland and the EEA there will be binding arbitration by an arbitrator in Ireland appointed by the President of the Law Society of Ireland.
giobox 28 minutes ago
SoftTalker 39 minutes ago
Software in general has disclaimed any warranties or fitness for purpose for as long as I can remember. This is nothing new.
naikrovek 12 minutes ago
show me any that have claimed that they were for entertainment purposes only. sql server has never had that in its EULA. The GPL does not say that the software is for entertainment purposes only.
lenerdenator 43 minutes ago
Well, there's your rationale as to why AI cannot replace you.
When sh!t hits the fan, Anthropic will immediately point to this clause. Who knows, maybe a court would see it as valid.
Meanwhile, your customer (and thus, your management) is looking for someone to blame for excrement making contact with the impellers. And that someone's gonna be you.
wowoc 16 minutes ago
Well, OpenAI doesn't seem to have clauses like this. Europeans are allowed to use it for commercial purposes under the ToS. (But check it yourself, I'm not a lawyer).
I reimplemented my startup idea from scratch with Codex a few months ago, just for peace of mind.
jmalicki 28 minutes ago
But you have limited funds to take in a lawsuit realistically the worst they can do is fire you, it's not like being blameable somehow makes you more valuable.
everdrive 4 hours ago
Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."
BrandoElFollito an hour ago
Some 20 years ago there was a story about a guy who was opening a bank account. The bank sent the contract, the guy ameneded it with things like "you will give le unlimited credit that I do not need to repay" (if my memory serves me right).
He signed, sent both copies, got his bank signed copy back
Went yo the bank, the bank sued him, he won (the judge told the bank that when you play dirty games you sometimes loose) and they ultimately settled.
lucianbr 27 minutes ago
https://www.rt.com/business/man-outsmarts-banks-wins-court-2...
I can never find an article that mentions the final outcome.
torginus 4 hours ago
My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense.
Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.
jerf 4 minutes ago
Nominally, Common Law, the system of law that to a first approximation is used in countries descended from the UK, has a lot of protections of that sort. You can't put "unconscionable" terms in a contract, e.g., it is simply illegal to sell yourself into total slavery in common-law derived systems. All signatories to a contract must consent, must not be under duress, the contract can not be one-sided (this doesn't mean "the contract is 'fair' from a 3rd-party point of view" but "the contract can't result in only one side giving things but the other doesn't"), and a variety of other common sense rules.
In practice, availing yourself of any of these protections is a massively uphill battle. Judges tend to presume that these common law matters are already embedded into the de facto legal system because the people writing the laws already operated under those assumptions while framing the law. Personally, I disagree and think a lot of these protections have eroded away into either nothing, or so little that it might as well be nothing, but you have a 0% chance of drawing me as a judge in your case so that won't help you much if you try.
crote 3 hours ago
On the other hand: imagine someone putting "by agreeing to this, you owe us $1,000,000,000 - unless you opt out in writing within 90 days" halfway down the 100-page EULA of some cookie-cutter smartphone app.
It is not at all uncommon for such absurd contract terms to be unenforceable - especially in B2C contracts, although it might even be tricky for B2B clickthrough ones.
The idea being that most contracts are fairly standard, so a lot of people will just skim through them. Putting a landmine in them is obviously in bad faith, so making it enforceable would basically make it impossible to do any kind of business at all.
disillusioned an hour ago
observationist 3 hours ago
ryandrake 3 hours ago
I wish we lived in more of a "spirit of the law" world than a "letter of the law" world, where everything needs to be spelled out, but we don't. A small minority of people enjoy Rules Lawyering their way through life, insisting on trying to "gotcha" counterparties who are acting in good faith, so as a consequence, we all have to be Rules Lawyers and everything needs to be spelled out.
xboxnolifes an hour ago
d3ckard 3 hours ago
WesolyKubeczek 2 hours ago
marcosdumay 4 hours ago
When the contract is purposefully obtuse and hard to understand, that should be a valid legal defense.
When it's huge, falls upon people that can't justify a lawyer, and keeps changing all the time, one shouldn't even need to claim it. It should be automatically invalid.
SoftTalker 34 minutes ago
voxic11 3 hours ago
ThrowawayR2 4 hours ago
"Our software developers clearly were negligent, but we stashed some bullshit legalese saying 'No warranty express or implied' into a document no one will read so our bug-infested software is completely OK."
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
owenm an hour ago
As far as I can tell, this is only for the free personal plan, not any of the business offerings (ie not Copilot for M365) and Github Copilot is under a separate set of terms.
“These Terms don’t apply to Microsoft 365 Copilot apps or services unless that specific app or service says that these Terms apply.”
Think of Copilot being a suite of different products under the same overall banner and it starts to make (a bit) more sense.
harvey9 an hour ago
Not really since the clause in full is "Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk."
Are you saying that the business version cannot make mistakes and can be relied upon for important advice?
owenm 41 minutes ago
No, I’m saying that MS have different terms for their business and personal offerings (as do OpenAI and Anthropic).
To be fair to them, MS are quite open about accuracy for the business offerings, see here as one example:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot/microsoft-365/micr...
brunoborges an hour ago
This should be the top comment.
polyamid23 6 minutes ago
They should tell copilot then! It seems to disagree.
- ‚Are you for entertainment purposes only?‘
-‚Not at all — unless you want me to be. The short version: I’m not “for entertainment only.”‘
Edit: Ok I see it is legal framing to not be held liable, but can they just do that via ToS and let the tool itself promote something else?
nashashmi a few seconds ago
[delayed]
lateforwork 8 minutes ago
Go to https://www.copilot.com/ and ask a question. You'll see from the answers that it is indeed for entertainment only. It is ridiculously behind ChatGPT, and I don't know how that can happen since Microsoft has access to the same models.
jeffwask 4 hours ago
I can hear the lawyers huddled around a conference table rolling the bones and chanting the sacred words to come up with that "get out of trouble free" card. It told your son he had terminal cancer and should kill himself... sorry, it clearly says for Entertainment Purposes only.
nunez 2 hours ago
FYI: This is only for the "Cortana replacement" Copilot, not the other Copilots. This language doesn't appear in GitHub Copilot's Consumer Agreement, for example.
therein 37 minutes ago
Maybe they shouldn't name everything Copilot.
sgbeal 4 hours ago
The section titled
> IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & WARNINGS
Tells us:
> You may stop using Copilot at any time.
That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.
mcv 16 minutes ago
> > You may stop using Copilot at any time.
> That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.
Maybe it's the only Microsoft product for which that's true? (It certainly feels that way, sometimes.)
monegator 3 hours ago
Like when i went to my github account to withdraw all copilot consents - which i never used anyway
just to be greeted with an email that welcomed me to copilot and the free plan. No button or link to disable the thing.
sgbeal 3 hours ago
> No button or link to disable the thing.
The line i initially quoted:
> You may stop using Copilot at any time.
Was incomplete. It continues with what initially appears to be a non sequitur:
> You may stop using Copilot at any time. If you want to close your Microsoft Account, please see the Microsoft Services Agreement.
It may not be a non sequitur, but may well be the only way to "opt out" of Copilot.
throwa356262 4 hours ago
I am working really hard to not start using Copilot.
And belive me, if you use any Microsoft products or services they really make it hard to avoid accidentally using the damn thing.
Including adding it to your office plan and then charging you 2x.
Junk_Collector 3 hours ago
Gotta love how they moved the "Create Email/meeting" buttons in Outlook mobile and stuck the Copilot button there so that you will hit it accidentally.
qubex 3 hours ago
I’m a Mac user and the only way to get Office 365 is a monthly subscription. Since there’s no subscription that doesn’t include CoPilot and since they hiked the price with the excuse that they’d added this thing I didn’t want, I just cancelled my subscription. A customer lost: hardly an issue, but if enough people do it, maybe they’ll get a clue and stop ramming this unwelcome abomination down our throats.
banannaise 3 hours ago
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time.
mindcrime 2 hours ago
But according to the Birmingham modifications of 1973, subsection 12.b, stroke 7a, a player so conceding is not deemed to have actually conceded unless they be within a finite number of hops from Mornington Crescent station at the time of the concession.
d1sxeyes 40 minutes ago
xnorswap 3 hours ago
I doubt it is odd, I suspect almost every ToS has something similar.
Mordisquitos 3 hours ago
I really hope so. Now I must peruse all ToS that I have agreed in the past to ensure that they have an equivalent clause. I hope I'm not contractually obliged to keep using some random website or whatever for the rest of my life.
Raed667 3 hours ago
a blanket "entertainment only" disclaimer likely wouldn't survive scrutiny for a product actively/relentlessly marketed as a productivity tool
varispeed 3 hours ago
depends how much judges are interested in bling.
yoyohello13 4 hours ago
I've been reading Jurassic Park recently. Hammond's monologue about expensive technology only being fundable via Entertainment seems very relevant.
Smalltalker-80 an hour ago
Cool, I'm going to put this disclaimer in my work email signature. So I'm never accountable for any mistakes.
osmsucks an hour ago
To us, all the profit. To you, all the risk.
LurkandComment 3 hours ago
I thought a year ago when I bought a new laptop with 365 and Copilot integrated that they would make better use of AI and its integration. I can't think of when I actually used it and cancelled any subscription associated with it. On the otherhand, I use ChatGPT all the time.
snu an hour ago
Hilariously, immediately after I read this, my boss sends a global message to us reminding us that we 'need to be trying to integrate copilot into our jobs.'
kklisura 2 hours ago
> Other people may send similar Prompts as yours, and they could get the same, similar, or different Responses and Creations.
This is why I'm skeptical about all this AI coding thing...
_trampeltier 2 hours ago
Just today afternoon, I did read a bit trough Adobes EULA and I saw most of Adobes Software is not allowed to be used from children. I guess most (todays) software are not allowed for children because of the whole user tracking and spying.
mghackerlady an hour ago
It could also be that minors aren't allowed to sign contracts, which a EULA could maybe be considered (I'm not a lawyer)
jmugan 2 hours ago
I thought the title was a joke until I actually read the thing.
anshumankmr 2 hours ago
If it is for entertainment purposes only, why am I not laughing when I use it?
SoftTalker 30 minutes ago
Some people find being whipped while bound in leather to be entertaining.
pwdisswordfishy an hour ago
You need a better sense of humour apparently.
nerdjon 4 hours ago
Can I get this on a sticker to pass out anyone tries to shove copilot down my throat at work?
Maybe a shirt, could sell it on the Microsoft store even. Now that would be entertainment.
oytis an hour ago
I might be alone with this, but I don't find it very entertaining.
wxw 4 hours ago
> Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.
> We don’t own Your Content, but we may use Your Content to operate Copilot and improve it. By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf.
lol
Junk_Collector 3 hours ago
This is as good as when the engineer from the Claude team said they load their website in such a way as to protect against hostile actions such as scraping.
ar0 4 hours ago
To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.
sgbeal 4 hours ago
> To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.
The section titled "WHEN & WHERE THESE TERMS APPLY" includes:
> Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites
rdsubhas 3 hours ago
Would be nice to know if it includes Github Copilot. I can't understand how to interpret "Copilot branded apps".
sgbeal 3 hours ago
giancarlostoro 4 hours ago
How does this affect Copilot in VS 2022 / VS 2026? Because this is kind of insulting to a professional. I really wish Microsoft would learn to name things correctly. There's Copilot the ChatGPT-like service, then there's Copilot for Visual Studio which is not the same as far as I can tell.
adambb 3 hours ago
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-y...
They do seem to word this at a more professional level in this context (the terms linked are for individuals using Copilot in Windows, probably?)
soupfordummies 2 hours ago
Worth noting that this is in the terms of use as of October 2025. This isn't "new".
ibejoeb an hour ago
They unironically relaunch it as XBox Copilot tomorrow...
monegator 4 hours ago
> Copilot may include advertising
OfirMarom 33 minutes ago
That one line is…doing A LOT of legal work.
pseudosavant 36 minutes ago
I can't help but be reminded of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas:
"Funny how? I mean, funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how?"
SoftTalker 32 minutes ago
I've read the claim that he ad-libbed a lot of that too.
staticautomatic 3 hours ago
Guys they're just disclaiming warranties relax
hn_acc1 an hour ago
Do not taunt Happy Copilot Ball.
mihaaly 37 minutes ago
My employer does not allow me using software with entertainment function on company hardver.
Now what?! Do I have to uninstall Windows?
jrochkind1 3 hours ago
No way that holds up in court when they are marketing it for things other than entertainment.
OrvalWintermute an hour ago
One of the most toxic TOS I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
maieuticagent 4 hours ago
They're just trying to pick up that Disney deal (Clippy rhymes with Mickey)
tech_ken 2 hours ago
Another bingo square for that 'AI is gambling' post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428541)
ortusdux 4 hours ago
It worked for Fox News
ranger_danger 2 hours ago
I think it's a little more nuanced than that.
https://www.allsides.com/news/2022-02-08-0800/media-industry...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-swi...
ratelimitsteve 4 hours ago
i like the way that when ai does something good of course the people who built it should make a lot of money but when it does something bad no one is responsible
bradleyankrom 3 hours ago
Lots of that going around these days (and for many of the previous days, at least in the US)
classified 2 hours ago
So they finally admit that it's just a toy? Where does that leave all the mega-"productive" developers?
Simulacra 4 hours ago
If it's for entertainment purposes only then why is it being shoved down our throats at every opportunity???
sheikhnbake 4 hours ago
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
kotaru 2 hours ago
I legit laughed for couple minutes, thank you for this comment.
boothby 3 hours ago
It's not for your entertainment, silly, it's for theirs.
ranger_danger 4 hours ago
Mandatory Fun (TM)
j45 2 hours ago
Non-exact software will be causing sleepless nights for non-exact legal writers.
caycep 2 hours ago
I should ask it to produce an image of Satya Nadella in Maximus garb yelling "are you not entertained?!"
ashleyn 3 hours ago
Ah yes, the new "for tobacco use only" of tech.
catlikesshrimp an hour ago
The ownership section is hilarious (tldr your content is not ours, but we can do anything you could do with it except being liable)
"We don’t own Your Content... By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf."
anthk 3 hours ago
I told you so, dear LLM evangelists.
Handy-Man 5 hours ago
Seems fine to me for the consumer facing product terms lol