The agreement limits Stability AI's financial liability to users, typically capping damages at a defined amount such as fees paid in the preceding period. Users bear responsibility for harms arising from how they use AI-generated outputs.
This analysis describes what Stability 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
The liability cap limits the financial remedies available to users if Stability AI's service causes harm, and the provision placing responsibility for AI output misuse on users is operationally significant for enterprise deployments.
Interpretive note: The exact text, cap amount, and scope of exclusions in the liability limitation provision were not available in the truncated document. The analysis reflects standard patterns for AI platform liability clauses.
The liability limitation asserted in this agreement caps what users can recover from Stability AI for losses arising from the service, and places responsibility for harms from AI-generated outputs on the user. The enforceability of this cap against consumers may be limited by applicable law in the EU, UK, and some US states.
How other platforms handle this
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...
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...
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...
Monitoring
Stability AI has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability limitation clauses in consumer contracts engage the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, both of which may limit the enforceability of caps that exclude liability for damage caused by the company's own fault or negligence. The FTC Act is relevant for US consumer users. EU product liability reform, including the revised Product Liability Directive and the proposed AI Liability Directive, may impose additional liability obligations on AI providers that cannot be contractually disclaimed against consumers. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The primary governance exposure is that the liability cap may not be enforceable against EU or UK consumers under mandatory consumer protection law, creating a gap between the contractual terms and actual legal exposure. For B2B users, standard commercial liability caps are common and generally enforceable subject to negotiation. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU and UK consumer users have the most significant exposure because mandatory consumer protection rules may override contractual liability limitations. US consumers in states with strong consumer protection statutes should assess local enforceability. Enterprise and developer users operating in regulated industries such as financial services or healthcare should assess whether the liability cap is compatible with their sector-specific regulatory obligations. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise procurement teams should seek to negotiate higher or uncapped liability for data breaches, gross negligence, and wilful misconduct as these are standard commercial exceptions to liability caps. The standard terms' cap, if based solely on fees paid, may be inadequate for high-value enterprise deployments. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether the liability limitation is consistent with applicable law in each jurisdiction where the service is deployed, and whether the organization's own risk management requirements mandate higher contractual liability thresholds from AI vendors.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Watcher: 10 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
Professional Governance Intelligence
Need to monitor specific governance provisions?
Professional includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.
Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.
The liability cap limits the financial remedies available to users if Stability AI's service causes harm, and the provision placing responsibility for AI output misuse on users is operationally significant for enterprise deployments.
The liability limitation asserted in this agreement caps what users can recover from Stability AI for losses arising from the service, and places responsibility for harms from AI-generated outputs on the user. The enforceability of this cap against consumers may be limited by applicable law in the EU, UK, and some US states.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 9 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Stability AI.