A.2 Discrepancies
We hereby discuss the six sources of discrepancies that we identified within our analysis of the corpus, and which we already introduced in Sect.
3: (i) asymmetric length of documents; (ii) sentence structure and segmentation; (iii) missing/extra clauses; (iv) country-specific clauses; (v) translation inaccuracy; (vi) legal concepts and terminology.
Length of documents across languages. A general observation concerns the structure of documents, and in particular the asymmetric length of ToS across the different language versions. In some cases, this is the product of missing/extra clauses, for example, because of country-specific terms. This is the case, among others, for the Terravision and Spotify ToS (see Sect.
7 and discussion infra in this section). In other cases, asymmetric length is a feature of linguistic differences. Consider, for instance, Evernote ToS that, while showing a remarkable similarity of structure across the 4 languages (no extra/missing clauses), shows a different word and sentence count across these languages: 6,798 words for the Polish version (283 sentences), 7,580 for the German (291 sentences), 7,902 for the Italian (270 sentences) and 7,795 for the English version (279 sentences).
Sentence structure and segmentation.
Moving from the structure of documents to the analysis of sentences, the first type of discrepancy concerns the structure and segmentation of sentences.
With regard to the structure, this type of discrepancy is mostly illustrated by situations in which the same information, contained in a single clause in the English version, is split into more than one clause in the target languages (or vice versa). In some cases, such situations do not appear very problematic as the same tag of the original English sentence can be identically reproduced across the two sentences in the target language. Consider the following sentence from the Dropbox ToS (updated April 17, 2018) and its Italian version:
<ter2>We reserve the right to suspend or terminate your access to the Services with notice to you if: (a) you’re in breach of these Terms, (b) you’re using the Services in a manner that would cause a real risk of harm or loss to us or other users, or (c) you don’t have a Paid Account and haven’t accessed our Services for 12 consecutive months.</ter2>(line 58).
<ter2>Ci riserviamo il diritto di sospendere o terminare, con preavviso, il tuo accesso ai Servizi qualora: (a) violi i presenti Termini. < /ter2> <ter2>(b) utilizzi i Servizi secondo modalità che comportano un rischio reale di danni o perdite per noi o altri utenti oppure (c) non hai un Account a pagamento e non hai effettuato l’accesso ai nostri Servizi per 12 mesi consecutivi.</ter2> (line 58).
Similarly, consider the two sentences from the Google Payment ToS (updated March 28, 2018) and their correspondence with a unique sentence in the Polish version:
<use2> You can accept the Agreement by: (a) Clicking to accept or agree to the Agreement, where this option is made available to You by GPL in the user interface; or (b) Actually using the services.</use2> <use2> In this case, You understand and agree that GPL will treat Your use of the services as acceptance of the Agreement from that point onwards.</use2> (lines 105–109).
<use2>Kupujący może zaakceptować Umowę: (a) klikając opcję zaakceptowania Umowy, jeśli opcja ta została udostępniona Kupującemu przez GPL w interfejsie użytkownika, lub (b) korzystając z usług - w tym przypadku Kupujący rozumie i akceptuje fakt, że GPL będzie traktować rozpoczęcie korzystania z usług jako zaakceptowanie Umowy.</use2> (lines 105–109).
In other cases the implications for annotation are more problematic, as nested tags may need to be manually split. Consider the following sentence from the TikTok ToS (updated July, 2020) in its English and German versions.
<cr2 ltd2>In addition, we have the right - but not the obligation - in our sole discretion to remove, disallow, block or delete any User Content (i) that we consider to violate these Terms, or (ii) in response to complaints from other users or third parties, with or without notice and without any liability to you.</cr2 /ltd2> (line 161).
<cr2>Darüber hinaus haben wir das Recht - ohne dazu verpflichtet zu sein -, nach unserem Ermessen Nutzerinhalte zu entfernen, zu untersagen, zu sperren oder zu löschen, (i) bei denen wir der Auffassung sind, dass sie gegen diese Nutzungsbedingungen verstoßen, oder (ii) wenn wir damit auf Beschwerden anderer Nutzer oder Dritter reagieren.</cr2>
<ltd2>Zu einer Vorankündigung Ihnen gegenüber sind wir dabei nicht verpflichtet und wir haften Ihnen gegenüber insofern auch nicht.</ltd2> (line 161).
With regard to sentence segmentation, problematic cases may be those in which only one out of two or more sentences in the target language is relevant and should be marked as unfair. Consider the following clause from the Kardia ToS (updated July 1, 2019) and their Polish version:
<ter2>If AliveCor makes any future change to this arbitration provision, other than a change to AliveCor’s address for Notice, you may reject the change by sending us written notice within 30 days of the change to AliveCor’s address for Notice, in which case your account with AliveCor will be immediately terminated and this arbitration provision, as in effect immediately prior to the changes you rejected will survive.</ter2> (line 175).
Jeżeli firma AliveCor wprowadzi jakiekolwiek przyszłe zmiany w powyższych postanowieniach dotyczących arbitrażu, inne niż zmiana adresu firmy AliveCor do Zawiadomień, użytkownik może odrzucić te zmiany poprzez wysłanie firmy AliveCor pisemnego zawiadomienia w ciągu 30 dni od wprowadzenia zmiany na adres firmy AliveCor do Zawiadomień. <ter2>W takim przypadku konto użytkownika w usługach AliveCor zostanie natychmiast zamknięte.</ter2> W mocy pozostaną powyższe postanowienia dotyczące arbitrażu, w wersji bezpośrednio przed wprowadzeniem zmian odrzuconych przez użytkownika. (line 175).
In this case, the different segmentation results in only one of the sentences in the target language being annotated as a potentially unfair termination clause. Both, the preceding and subsequent parts remain irrelevant for the envisaged task.
Missing/extra clauses.
The third type of discrepancy we identify is missing/extra clauses, meaning the absence of certain clauses in the different versions of the ToS. Consider the following clause taken from the Western Union ToS (accessed November 2022) which is completely missing in the Polish and German versions.
<ltd2>Neither are You liable to Us, nor is Western Union liable to You for damage caused by the proper exercise of Your or Our rights pursuant to these Terms and Conditions or by the use of the Western Union Online Service.</ltd2> (line 212).
The same is true for the following arbitration and jurisdiction clauses in the English version of the Spotify ToS (effective as of 9 September 2015), which are absent in the German version:
<j3>Further, you and Spotify agree to the jurisdiction of the courts listed below to resolve any dispute, claim, or controversy that arises in connection with the Agreements (and any non-contractual disputes/claims arising out of or in connection with them).</j3> <law2 j3>(In some cases, that jurisdiction will be “exclusive”, meaning that no other countries’ courts can preside over the matter; have jurisdiction; in other cases, the jurisdiction is “non-exclusive”, meaning that other countries’ courts may have jurisdiction as well. This is indicated in the chart as well.)</j3 /law2> (line 176).
Furthermore, we observed that a sizeable proportion of the Spotify ToS on dispute resolution was removed from the German version and replaced with a single clause (line 175).
Terms of service in target languages may further include extra (potentially) unfair clauses. Consider the following sentences from the German and Polish Groupon ToS (accessed February 9, 2022), which are missing in the English terms:
<ltd2>Groupon Travel nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za zmianę cen w innych walutach, ponieważ mogą one wynikać z kursu wymiany walut stosowanego przez Państwa bank.</ltd2>(line 771).
<ltd2>Groupon Travel garantiert ihn nicht und übernimmt keinerlei Verantwortung im Fall einer Änderung, da wir ihn nicht beeinflussen.</ltd2> (line 775).
Missing/extra clauses may be the product of an omission or error, but they also may be the product of deliberate choices to draft contracts differently for different national markets. Such different choices may be made necessary by country-specific services offered only at certain locations, by the need to comply with country-specific regulation, or, more generally, reflect the company’s intention to regulate the contractual relationship differently in different countries. This is confirmed by the presence of country-specific clauses (CSC), as detailed below.
Country-specific clauses.
Our analysis revealed that 20 out of the 150 ToS contained country–specific clauses (see Table
7). The choice to draft contracts differently for different national markets may be made necessary to comply with EU norms and judicial decisions
24 as well as with country-specific regulations. In many cases these clauses concern the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law. Consider, for instance, the following clauses taken from the Klarna ToS (updated November 6, 2021) and their corresponding Italian (updated September 15, 2021) and Polish (updated November 10, 2021) versions:
<law2 j3>This Agreement is governed by the laws of England and Wales and is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of England and Wales.</j3 /law2> <j1>If you are a resident of Northern Ireland you may also bring proceedings in Northern Ireland, and if you are a resident of Scotland, you may also bring proceedings in Scotland.</j1> (line 202).
<law1>Il nostro rapporto contrattuale sarà regolato dalla legge italiana.</law1> <j1>Qualsiasi controversia derivante da o in relazione a questo Servizio sarà soggetta al Tribunale del tuo domicilio.</j1> (line 124).
<law1>Niniejsze warunki podlegają prawu polskiemu.</law1> <j1>Spory wynikające z niniejszych warunków podlegają sądom właściwym zgodnie ze znajdującymi zastosowanie przepisami o właściwości sądów, w tym przepisami Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.</j1> (line 212).
As a further example, the need to comply with country-specific regulation may result in substantive differences in clauses providing for age requirements to use certain services.
25
Finally, the presence of these clauses may be also due to the company’s intention to regulate the contractual relationship differently in different countries. In a few cases, especially in the German versions of some ToS, this may lead to an entirely different approach to the drafting of clauses related to certain matters, like provider’s liability. Among others, such discrepancies were found in the Electronic Arts ToS.
26
Sometimes, additional terms, which only apply to users from a certain country, are made available by clicking on a separate link. This is the case, for instance of Oculus,
27 TikTok
28 and Yahoo,
29 containing extra terms for German users in the first two cases, and for both German and Italian in the latter case.
Translation inaccuracy.
In some cases, the discrepancy consists in errors or inaccuracies in translation from the source English ToS into the target languages. Such errors and inaccuracies may change the legal effects of a clause, with consequences on its qualification as potentially unfair by the annotators. As an example, consider the following clause taken from the Evernote ToS and their Italian version (updated August 28, 2017):
<use2>If you do register for or otherwise use our Service you shall be deemed to confirm your acceptance of the Terms and your agreement to be a party to this binding contract.</use2>(line 4).
La registrazione al Servizio o il suo uso richiedono di confermare la propria accettazione dei Termini, cosa che rende di conseguenza l’utente un soggetto vincolato al presente contratto. (line 4).
The English sentence is a clear example of a contract by using clause, thus potentially unfair. By contrast, the Italian translation simply states that in order to register for the service, the consumer needs to accept the terms. Thus, the Italian version has not been annotated. A similar discrepancy is not observed in the German and Polish versions of this sentence, thus suggesting a translation error. This seems to be further supported by another discrepancy between English and Polish versions in the same ToS. Consider the following clauses:
We invite you to access our websites and use the Evernote service, but please note that your invitation is subject to your agreement with these Terms of Service. (line 2).
<use2>Zapraszamy do przeglądania naszych stron internetowych i korzystania z usługi Evernote, ale podkreślamy, że korzystając z zaproszenia, akceptujesz Warunki świadczenia usługi wymienione poniżej.</use2> (line 2).
In contrast to the English version, the Polish formulation indicates that “by making use of the invitation” the user “accepts the [company’s] terms of service”. Accordingly, the sentence has been annotated as a potentially unfair contract by using clause. A similar discrepancy is not identified in the German and Italian ToS.
Similarly, consider the English and Polish versions of the following clause taken from the Booking.com ToS (updated on 23 January 2021).
Booking.com does not own or endorse the photos/images that are uploaded. (line 174).
<ltd2>Booking.com zrzeka się wszelkiej odpowiedzialności za publikowane zdjęcia</ltd2>. (line 174).
While the Polish clause states that the company is not responsible/liable for the uploaded images and thus it has been marked as a potentially unfair limitation of liability, the English version only states that the service provider does not endorse such content.
Translated documents can also feature syntax errors (e.g., word omissions), obscuring the meaning of a sentence. Consider the English and Polish versions of the following clause on dispute resolution from the Evernote ToS (updated on August 2017):
<j3>Except where our dispute is being resolved pursuant to an arbitration (as provided below), if you are not a resident of the United States, Canada, or Brazil, you agree that any claim or dispute you may have against Evernote must be resolved exclusively by the courts in Zurich, Switzerland.</j3> (line 121).
<j3>Z wyjątkiem sytuacji, w których nasz jest rozstrzygany na podstawie arbitrażu (zgodnie z poniższym opisem), jeśli nie jesteś mieszkańcem Stanów Zjednoczonych, Kanady lub Brazylii zgadzasz się, że wszelkie roszczenia lub spory, które możesz mieć przeciwko Evernote, muszą być rozstrzygane wyłącznie sądy zlokalizowane w Zurychu, w Szwajcarii.</j3> (line 121)
It appears that the word “dispute” is missing in the Polish version of the above clause, similarly to the two other related clauses (lines 119 and 120). In consequence, the complete meaning of the sentence is difficult to reconstruct for the human reader.
Legal concepts and terminology.
The last type of discrepancy derives from the choice of legal terminology, which may be more or less deliberate. Indeed, legal languages remain profoundly culture-bound and terminological nuances in different languages may be difficult to capture regardless of the applied translation process (see Sect.
1).
In our corpus this type of discrepancy emerges in relation to the use of particular terms, for instance terms related to responsibility and liability. Unlike in English, in the other languages of our corpus such a distinction is hard to capture.
Consider, for instance, the following clause taken from the Pinterest ToS (updated May 1, 2018) and its Polish and Italian counterparts that employ the expressions “odpowiedzialność” and “responsabilità”, without differentiation between responsibility and liability:
<ltd2>Pinterest takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any User Content that you or any other person or third party posts or sends using our Service.</ltd2> (line 88).
<ltd2>Pinterest nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za jakiekolwiek Treści użytkownika, które Ty lub inni użytkownicy albo osoby trzecie umieszczacie lub wysyłacie przy użyciu naszych usług.</ltd2>(line 88).
<ltd2>Pinterest non si assume alcuna responsabilità per i Contenuti dell’utente che tu o qualsiasi altra persona o terza parte pubblicate o inviate utilizzando il nostro Servizio.</ltd2> (line 88).
While linguistic variations related to responsibility (obligations) and liability do not always entail differing annotations, they sometimes may. Consider, for example, the following situation from the Terravision ToS (as accessed on 31 January 2021):
<ltd2>Terravision is not liable to passengers who did not reserve their trip.</ltd2> (line 108).
Terravision non ha alcun obbligo nei confronti dei passeggeri che non hanno prenotato la corsa. (line 108).
Here, a translation of the English term “to be liable” into the more generic Italian “avere obbligo” results in different annotation choices in the different languages.