Microsoft · Microsoft Responsible AI Standard · View original document ↗

Reliability and Safety Principle

Low severity Low confidence Inferredfromcontext Unique · 0 of 325 platforms
Share 𝕏 Share in Share 🔒 PDF
Recent governance activity Microsoft recorded 3 documented changes in the last 30 days.
Start monitoring updates
Monitor governance changes for Microsoft Create a free account to receive the weekly governance digest and monitor one platform for governance changes.
Create free account No credit card required.
Document Record

What it is

Microsoft states that its AI systems should perform reliably and safely, behaving as designed and responding safely to unanticipated conditions.

This analysis describes what Microsoft'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

ConductAtlas Analysis

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

This principle is relevant to consumers and organizations relying on Microsoft AI systems in safety-critical contexts, as it describes the standard of reliability Microsoft states it aspires to in system design.

Interpretive note: The document text was not fully available for direct quotation; the principle is described based on the page's stated subject matter and publicly known content of this Microsoft page.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

This is a stated design aspiration rather than a warranty or service guarantee; it does not establish a contractual commitment that Microsoft AI products will function without errors or safety failures. Product-specific terms govern liability for system failures.

How other platforms handle this

Whatnot Medium

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, NEITHER WHATNOT NOR ITS SERVICE PROVIDERS INVOLVED IN CREATING, PRODUCING, OR DELIVERING THE SERVICES WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOST REVENUES, LOST SAVINGS, LOST BUSINESS OPPORT...

Cohere Medium

In no event will either party's aggregate liability arising out of or related to this Agreement exceed the total fees paid or payable by Customer in the twelve (12) months preceding the claim. In no event will either party be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive d...

Anthropic Medium

Except as stated in Section L.3.b, the liability of each party, and its affiliates and licensors, for any damages arising out of or related to these Terms (i) excludes damages that are consequential, incidental, special, indirect, or exemplary damages, including lost profits, business, contracts, re...

See all platforms with this clause type →

Monitoring

Microsoft has changed this document before.

Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.

Start Watcher free trial Or create a free account →
ConductAtlas Analysis

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Reliability and safety requirements for AI systems are addressed under the EU AI Act, particularly for high-risk AI system categories, and under sector-specific frameworks in healthcare (FDA, HHS), aviation, and financial services. This public statement does not satisfy the technical documentation, testing, and monitoring requirements imposed by these frameworks. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Low as a standalone statement. Exposure increases when this principle is cited in procurement contexts without verification against product-level safety documentation. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU/EEA organizations subject to the EU AI Act face the highest exposure if relying on policy statements rather than conformity assessments. Healthcare and safety-critical industry deployments in any jurisdiction require product-specific safety documentation. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Procurement teams should seek product-specific safety certifications, incident response commitments, and SLA terms rather than relying on this policy page. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Organizations in regulated industries should map this principle against the actual technical and operational controls documented in Microsoft's product-specific compliance materials.

Full compliance analysis

Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.

Track 1 platform — free Try Watcher free for 14 days

Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Watcher: 10 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.

Applicable regulations

FTC Act Section 5
United States Federal

Provision details

Document information
Document
Microsoft Responsible AI Standard
Entity
Microsoft
Document last updated
May 12, 2026
Tracking information
First tracked
April 27, 2026
Last verified
May 12, 2026
Record ID
CA-P-002531
Document ID
CA-D-00019
Evidence Provenance
Source URL
Wayback Machine
Content hash (SHA-256)
77bc43a7f84410902fdbac1b71574e6a146d5315f383cd6ee7ecdd0ee54cd259
Analysis generated
April 27, 2026 09:59 UTC
Methodology
Evidence
✓ Snapshot stored   ✓ Hash verified
Citation Record
Entity: Microsoft
Document: Microsoft Responsible AI Standard
Record ID: CA-P-002531
Captured: 2026-04-27 09:59:26 UTC
SHA-256: 77bc43a7f8441090…
URL: https://conductatlas.com/platform/microsoft/microsoft-responsible-ai-standard/reliability-and-safety-principle/
Accessed: May 13, 2026
Permanent archival reference. Stable identifier suitable for legal filings, compliance documentation, and research citation.
Classification
Severity
Low
Categories

Other risks in this policy

Professional Governance Intelligence

Need to monitor specific governance provisions?

Professional includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.

Arbitration clauses AI governance Data rights Indemnification Retention policies
Start Professional free trial

Or start with Watcher →

Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Microsoft's Reliability and Safety Principle clause do?

This principle is relevant to consumers and organizations relying on Microsoft AI systems in safety-critical contexts, as it describes the standard of reliability Microsoft states it aspires to in system design.

How does this clause affect you?

This is a stated design aspiration rather than a warranty or service guarantee; it does not establish a contractual commitment that Microsoft AI products will function without errors or safety failures. Product-specific terms govern liability for system failures.

Is ConductAtlas affiliated with Microsoft?

No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Microsoft.