In 2026, a growing number of business owners use ChatGPT or other generic AI tools to draft their terms of use. The process appears simple, fast and free. In reality, this approach carries major legal risks that can cost far more than a professional solution. Fabricated legal references, missing mandatory clauses, inconsistencies between documents: the pitfalls are numerous and the consequences potentially severe. Article 83 of the GDPR provides for fines of up to 20 million euros or 4% of annual global turnover. Here is why entrusting your legal documents to a generic AI is a risky gamble.
The problem of legal hallucinations
The most insidious risk of generic AI is its ability to produce false information presented with total confidence. In law, this phenomenon is particularly dangerous.
Fabricated legal references
Language models such as ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini do not understand the law. They predict statistically probable word sequences. The result: terms of use that cite non-existent legal articles, fictitious case law or misattributed regulatory provisions. You could end up with a document referencing an EU directive with the wrong number, or invoking a regulation that has been repealed or never existed in the form cited.
The fundamental problem is that these errors are undetectable to a non-lawyer. The document looks professional, well-structured and convincing. But before a court or during an audit by a data protection authority such as the CNIL (France’s data protection authority), incorrect legal references demonstrate a lack of diligence in fulfilling your legal obligations.
Law frozen in time
Generic AI models are trained on dated data. Models available in 2026 may reflect a state of law from several months or even one to two years ago. Yet digital law evolves constantly: new guidance from EU data protection authorities, updates to European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidelines, implementation of EU directives such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Your terms of use generated by a generic AI may not incorporate the latest applicable requirements.
Mandatory clauses that generic AI misses
A legal document is not simply a text: it is a structured set of clauses meeting precise legal requirements. Generic AI regularly fails to cover all of these requirements.
What EU and French law requires in terms of use
The GDPR, combined with national implementing legislation, imposes specific provisions in a website’s terms of use:
- Identification details: company name, legal form, registered address, registration number, VAT number
- Personal data: reference to the privacy policy, legal basis for processing (Article 6 GDPR), user rights (Articles 15 to 22 GDPR), DPO contact details where applicable
- Intellectual property: conditions for content use, licences granted, restrictions
- Liability: limitations of liability, force majeure clauses, warranty terms compliant with consumer protection law
- Right of withdrawal: how to exercise it, 14-day period under EU consumer protection directives, applicable exceptions
When you ask ChatGPT to draft terms of use, the result frequently contains omissions on one or more of these points. The AI produces text that looks like terms of use but does not cover all the legal requirements specific to your jurisdiction. For a comprehensive overview of all required documents, see our guide on the 4 essential legal documents for every e-commerce website.
No adaptation to your specific business
A generic AI does not ask you questions about your business. It does not know whether you operate an e-commerce site, a SaaS platform, a marketplace or a monetised blog. Each of these activities entails different legal obligations. An e-commerce site must include the right of withdrawal and legal guarantees of conformity. A SaaS platform must specify service levels and termination conditions. A marketplace must distinguish between the seller’s obligations and those of the platform. Generic AI produces generic text that does not account for these specificities.
Inconsistency between documents: an underestimated risk
Terms of use do not function in isolation. They work together with the privacy policy, cookie policy and terms of sale to form a coherent legal framework. This is precisely where generic AI fails most significantly.
Contradictory terminology
When you generate your documents one by one with ChatGPT, each session produces an independent text. The terms of use might refer to “personal data” while the privacy policy uses “personal information”. The terms of use might name a “data controller” designated differently in the privacy policy. These terminological inconsistencies, seemingly harmless, can be exploited in a dispute and demonstrate a lack of legal rigour.
Missing or incorrect cross-references
Compliant terms of use must explicitly reference your privacy policy (Article 13 GDPR) and your cookie policy. Generic AI often omits these references or phrases them vaguely (“our privacy policy available on our website”). A correct reference must point to the exact URL of the relevant document and be integrated into each relevant section of the terms of use. To understand what each element of your privacy policy must contain, read our article on mandatory privacy policy elements.
Inconsistent retention periods and legal bases
Your terms of use state that account data is retained “for the duration of the contractual relationship”. Your privacy policy mentions a “retention period of 3 years after the last activity”. Your cookie policy announces cookies “retained for 13 months in accordance with CNIL recommendations”. These periods must be consistent across all your documents. Generic AI, which generates each document separately, cannot guarantee this consistency.
No legal liability
When a lawyer drafts your terms of use, their professional liability is engaged. If the document contains an error that causes you harm, you have legal recourse. A specialised AI generator relies on legally validated and constantly updated templates. With ChatGPT, you have no guarantee and no recourse. OpenAI’s terms of use explicitly exclude any liability for the accuracy or legal relevance of generated content.
In the event of an audit by a data protection authority or a dispute with a customer, you cannot invoke the fact that “ChatGPT drafted your terms of use” as a mitigating circumstance. The responsibility for the compliance of your legal documents lies entirely with you as the website publisher.
The real cost of “free”
Using ChatGPT appears free (or limited to the cost of an existing subscription). But the real cost is measured differently:
- Time writing prompts: 30 minutes to 1 hour per document to obtain a first usable result
- Verification time: 1 to 2 hours per document to check legal references and clause completeness
- Lawyer review: 150 to 300 euros per document if you want a professional review (strongly recommended)
- Correction costs: if your documents prove non-compliant after an audit, urgent compliance costs can reach several thousand euros
- Penalty risk: GDPR non-compliance fines can reach 20 million euros or 4% of annual global turnover (Article 83 GDPR)
In total, the real cost is between 500 and 1,500 euros in time and verification for an uncertain result. This is considerably more expensive than a specialised legal document generator that produces compliant documents in minutes.
Alternatives for compliant terms of use
Option 1: A specialised lawyer (200-500 euros per document)
The most personalised solution. A lawyer specialising in digital law drafts bespoke terms of use adapted to your specific activity. Their professional liability is engaged. Total cost for a pack of 4 documents: 800 to 1,800 euros. Timeline: 1 to 3 weeks. Recommended for regulated activities or sensitive data processing.
Option 2: Drafting yourself with templates (0 euros + high risk)
Terms of use templates exist online, but they are often outdated, incomplete and not adapted to your situation. The adaptation time is considerable (3 to 5 hours minimum) and the risk of non-compliance is high. This option is not recommended.
Option 3: Generic AI — ChatGPT, Claude, etc. (0 euros + 150-300 euros review)
As detailed in this article, this approach carries major risks: legal hallucinations, missing clauses, inconsistencies between documents, no liability. The real cost, including the necessary review by a professional, ranges from 150 to 300 euros per document, for a result that remains uncertain. For a complete comparison, see our analysis of lawyer vs AI generator.
Option 4: The specialised AI generator WebLegal.ai (€14.90-19.90)
A generator specialising in legal documents solves precisely the problems described in this article. The structured form collects relevant information about your business. The specialised AI applies the rules of the GDPR (Articles 12, 13, 14, 30), EU consumer protection directives and applicable national legislation. Consistency across all your documents is guaranteed. The result is available in less than 10 minutes for a fraction of a lawyer’s cost. To understand the most common mistakes in terms of sale, see our guide on compliant terms of sale.
Conclusion
Using ChatGPT or a generic AI to draft your terms of use is a false economy of time and money. Legal hallucinations, missing mandatory clauses, inconsistencies between documents and the absence of liability expose your business to real legal and financial risks. In 2026, penalties for GDPR non-compliance are enforced with increasing rigour by data protection authorities across Europe. The right approach is to use a tool specifically designed for drafting legal documents: either a specialised lawyer for complex cases, or a specialised AI generator for the vast majority of websites. Every day without compliant legal documents is a day of exposure to penalties. Protect your business now.