This analysis describes what OpenAI'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
The claim establishes that OpenAI's restrictions on gpt-5-thinking in this domain are not grounded in confirmed harm evidence but in a deliberate precautionary policy choice.
Interpretive note: The excerpt uses an ellipsis, suggesting text was omitted between the harm-evidence disclaimer and the precautionary conclusion. The canonical claim reflects only what the quoted language establishes.
Users of gpt-5-thinking are subject to precautionary restrictions in the biological harm domain even though OpenAI has stated it lacks definitive evidence of the specific risk those restrictions address.
How other platforms handle this
Microsoft reserves the right to restrict the export of data that may compromise the security of the services or Microsoft's intellectual property.
Datadog reserves the right, but does not assume the obligation, to investigate any violation of these Terms or misuse of the Site.
Pharmaceutical products
"While we do not have definitive evidence that this model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm...we have chosen to take a precautionary approach.Excerpt from OpenAI's GPT-5 System Card
Buried in Robinhood's customer agreement is broad authority to close your positions, suspend your account, and force arbitration. Here is what it actually says.
Stripe's terms authorize fund reserves, payout withholding, and account termination. Here is what the agreement states and what business owners should review.
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 claim establishes that OpenAI's restrictions on gpt-5-thinking in this domain are not grounded in confirmed harm evidence but in a deliberate precautionary policy choice.
Users of gpt-5-thinking are subject to precautionary restrictions in the biological harm domain even though OpenAI has stated it lacks definitive evidence of the specific risk those restrictions address.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 263 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by OpenAI.