This analysis describes what Harvey AI's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
How other platforms handle this
If Google reasonably believes the Services might infringe a third party's Intellectual Property Rights, then Google may, at its sole option and expense: (i) procure the right for Customer to continue using the Services; (ii) modify the Services to make them non-infringing...
In response to an actual or potential Infringement Claim, Atlassian may, at its option: (a) procure rights for Customer's continued use of the Products, (b) replace or modify the alleged infringing portion...or (c) terminate the affected Subscription Term...
To the extent permitted by applicable law, this Section 13 (Indemnification) states the parties' sole and exclusive remedy under this Agreement for any third-party allegations of Intellectual Property Rights infringement...
"Harvey may either: (i) substitute functionally similar products or services, (ii) procure for You the right to continue using the Service, or if (i) and (ii) are not commercially reasonable, (iii) terminate this Agreement...Excerpt from Harvey AI's Terms of Service
Get the research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean.
The clause states: “Harvey may either: (i) substitute functionally similar products or services, (ii) procure for You the right to continue using the Service, or if (i) and (ii) are not commercially reasonable, (iii) terminate this Agreement...”
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 229 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Harvey AI.