AI and ML Training Data Prohibition

What it is

The agreement prohibits customers from using any Google Maps Content to train, test, validate, or fine-tune machine learning or artificial intelligence models, as one of several enumerated prohibitions on creating content from Google Maps Content.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

This provision establishes a license condition that directly restricts how customers may use geospatial data obtained through the Maps Platform, including in downstream AI and ML development workflows. A breach of this restriction is identified in Section 5.2(d) as a basis for immediate service suspension without the 24-hour cure period available for AUP violations.

This document changed recently

Clause Stability Stable

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

This provision restricts the developers and businesses building applications on Google Maps Platform from incorporating Maps data into AI or ML systems, which may affect the features and capabilities of applications end users interact with. Under this clause, any application whose Maps integration violates this restriction may be subject to suspension, potentially interrupting end user access to Maps-dependent features.

Institutional analysis (regulatory & governance intelligence)

(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: This provision is a contractual license restriction rather than a direct regulatory obligation, but it interacts with EU AI Act compliance considerations for customers developing AI systems in the EEA, where training data provenance and licensing may be subject to regulatory scrutiny. The FTC Act's unfair or deceptive practices framework may be relevant if a customer's AI training practices conflict with representations made in their own privacy or terms documentation. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. This restriction creates direct exposure for any customer organization with AI or ML product development teams that have access to Google Maps API data, as the prohibition covers not only production training but also testing, validation, and fine-tuning. The breach consequence under Section 5.2(d) is immediate suspension without a cure period, creating operational continuity risk for any Maps-dependent application. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: Customers operating in the EU and EEA face heightened exposure given the EU AI Act's requirements around training data documentation and the GDPR's lawful basis requirements for automated processing. California-based customers should also evaluate this restriction in the context of CCPA obligations around data use disclosed in privacy policies, particularly if Maps-derived data has been characterized as a business input in any privacy disclosures. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Procurement and vendor management teams should treat this restriction as a hard contractual boundary requiring active monitoring. Customers who sublicense or share Maps data with third-party ML vendors or data science contractors should ensure downstream contracts explicitly prohibit the same use. The prohibition covers indirect use, meaning a customer cannot authorize a subcontractor to perform the prohibited activity. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should audit existing data pipelines for any ingestion of Google Maps Content into ML training, validation, or fine-tuning workflows. Internal AI governance policies should be updated to flag Google Maps Content as a restricted data source. If any historical use may have occurred, legal counsel should assess whether this constitutes a material breach requiring disclosure or remediation under the agreement.

Applicable agencies

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Aggregate Liability Cap at 12-Month Fees Paid high
• Customer Indemnification of Google for AUP and Agreement Violations high
• End User Location Data Requires Express Prior Consent high
• Google Collects and Uses End User Data to Improve Products high
• Google Disclaimer of All Implied Warranties high
• Google Indemnification for IP Infringement Claims high