The ConductAtlas User-Protection Index
A single 0–100 score of how a vendor's governance terms treat the rights of the user or customer — higher means more protective of you. It is deliberately a user-protective lens, not a universal “good vendor / bad vendor” judgment: a vendor can score low here for terms that are perfectly lawful and commercially normal. The Index only reports how far the terms favor the user.
How a score is built
For each vendor we read six governance stance dimensions. Each dimension is scored 0–100 from a weighted blend
of its underlying fields (100 = the user-protective answer). The Index is the weighted average of the covered dimensions:
Index = Σ(dimension weight × dimension score) ÷ Σ(dimension weight) over the dimensions we could confidently read.
Dimension weights & scoring
| Dimension | Weight | Fields (within-dimension weight · scoring) |
|---|---|---|
| Arbitration & class action arbitration |
22% |
arbitration_required · 50%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 class_action_waiver · 35%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 opt_out_window_days · 15%
>0 days -> 100 (an opt-out exists); 0/unstated excluded |
| Data sharing & sale data_sharing |
20% |
sells_personal_data · 45%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 shares_with_third_parties · 35%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 opt_out_available · 20%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 |
| AI training on your data data_usage |
18% |
trains_on_user_content · 55%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 default_posture · 25%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 opt_out_available · 20%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 |
| Data retention & deletion data_retention |
15% |
deletes_after_termination · 65%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 retention_period_days · 35%
0d->100, <=30->90, <=90->80, <=365->65, <=1095->45, >1095->25 |
| Content ownership & licence intellectual_property |
15% |
user_retains_ownership · 45%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 perpetual_or_irrevocable_license · 40%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 grants_platform_license · 15%
granting a licence -> 0, none -> 100; but a bare licence grant ALONE (no ownership or perpetual/irrevocable field stated) leaves the whole dimension NOT STATED, not scored |
| Liability & warranties liability_limitation |
10% |
limits_liability · 45%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 disclaims_all_warranties · 35%
protective value -> 100, opposite -> 0 claim_period_days · 20%
<365->0, 365->25, <=730->50, >730->70 (shorter window = less protective) |
Weights are a transparent value judgment: the right to sue and control over personal data are weighted highest; liability/warranty boilerplate is near-universal so it differentiates least and is weighted lowest.
Coverage — missing is never penalized
- A dimension counts only if the vendor has a confidently-extracted, exposed stance for it. Anything not stated, held for review, or low-confidence is omitted, never scored as zero.
- Weights renormalize over the covered set, and every score carries a coverage indicator — “scored on N of 6.” A 90 on 2-of-6 and a 90 on 6-of-6 are shown differently.
Per-tier — never flattened
- A vendor gets a separate score per audience tier (consumer / business / api), each from that tier's own stances. A consumer opt-out and a business opt-in are two scores, never averaged into one.
- Where a vendor's terms are audience-agnostic (a general privacy policy), that shared base fills a tier's gaps per dimension — it is a fallback, not a flattening of distinct tiers.
Provenance
Every scored dimension links to the exact cited provisions behind it, each with the verbatim excerpt, capture date, and SHA-256 on its record page. The score is only ever as good as the citations under it — and they are all public.