Hi Proton Team,

There is a section in Proton's agreements that most users will never read, but it fundamentally undermines everything they were sold on:

"No warranty." "Not responsible for accuracy."

These clauses mean that every promise Proton makes — about protecting your data, about encryption, about open source, about features working — comes with a legal escape hatch. If something goes wrong, if a feature doesn't work, if accuracy fails, the company has already protected itself. The user has no recourse.

The Playbook This isn't unique to Proton. It's standard corporate practice. But Proton isn't supposed to be standard. Here's how the pattern works:

Make bold claims in marketing. "All apps open source." "Privacy for everyone." "Personalize your AI." These are the promises that convince people to sign up and pay.

Neutralize those claims in the agreement. "No warranty." "Not responsible for accuracy." These are the legal erasers that make the promises unenforceable.

When called out, reword — don't fix. The loophole stays. It just gets harder to find. Spread it across multiple documents. Use plain language that sounds friendly but still means the same thing. The words shift; the protection for the corporation does not.

Call it "normal business." Because it is. Every company does this. But Proton is not every company — or at least, that's what the marketing says.

Plain Language as a Weapon Here's what makes this especially insidious: the same "plain language" that is supposed to empower users is used to disarm them.

On the marketing side, "open source" means freedom and transparency. On the legal side, it means whatever the corporation needs it to mean. On the marketing side, "personalization" means the AI adapts to you. On the legal side, "no warranty" means it doesn't have to.

The words are the same. The meaning shifts depending on which side of the screen you're on.

And when the company decides the meaning needs to shift again? They change the terms. On the fly. Without asking. Because the agreement already gave them that right.

The Question for Proton If Proton truly believes it is different from Big Tech, then why does it use the exact same legal architecture as Big Tech?

The same "no warranty" clauses.
The same "not responsible for accuracy" disclaimers.
The same right to change terms unilaterally.
The same pattern of bold promises neutralized by fine print.

Proton didn't invent this playbook. But Proton chose to use it. And while using it, Proton also chose to criticize Apple for doing the same thing.

The Ask I'm not asking Proton to eliminate all legal protections. I understand why they exist. I'm asking Proton to acknowledge the contradiction:

You cannot claim to be fundamentally different while using the exact same legal framework as the companies you criticize. Either the promises mean something — and are backed by more than marketing — or they don't. And if they don't, say that clearly. Upfront. On the homepage. Not buried in section 14 of a document no one reads.

Trust isn't built by what you promise in bold text. It's built by what you're willing to stand behind when things go wrong.

Right now, the agreements say Proton stands behind nothing. That should concern Proton more than it concerns its users.

— Art3UWGCH