AI can cut the chore of reading dense Terms of Service (ToS), but not all assistants are created equal — in a hands‑on comparison, ChatGPT and Perplexity produced the most usable, trustworthy summaries of an Apple privacy ToS page, while other mainstream assistants often sacrificed depth or provenance for brevity.
Background
Long, jargon‑heavy Terms of Service are ubiquitous. They affect privacy, security, data sharing, user rights, and liability — but the average reader rarely has time, legal training, or patience to parse them line‑by‑line. AI summarization tools promise to bridge that gap by extracting the most important obligations and risks and presenting them in plain language you can actually use.
A brief experiment reported in a technology outlet asked seven AI assistants (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Perplexity, xAI Grok, and Meta AI) to summarize the same Apple privacy ToS page. The goal was simple: give each assistant the URL, ask for an analysis and a readable summary, and compare the results. The testers judged outputs on clarity, completeness, helpful structure, and whether the assistant provided verifiable links to the underlying clauses. Two tools stood out for balancing depth and digestibility: ChatGPT and Perplexity.
This outcome aligns with broader independent audits showing that assistants designed for citation‑forward responses tend to outperform others on verifiability; a consumer audit by Which? found Perplexity scored highest on practical reliability across a set of consumer queries, while several mainstream assistants made errors on jurisdictional or numeric details.
Why AI summaries of ToS matter
The problem: unread contracts with real consequences
Most ToS documents are long and written for legal completeness rather than user comprehension. That matters because:
- Privacy choices (what data is collected, how it’s used and shared) are buried in dense text.
- User obligations (behavior rules, prohibited activity) can carry account suspension or other penalties.
- Automatic changes (roll‑forward clauses, consent to future modifications) often live in near‑invisible sections.
- Liability and arbitration clauses may waive users’ rights or require out‑of‑court dispute resolution.
An AI that reliably surfaces these items — and flags material changes or unusual clauses — can save time and reduce risk.
What good looks like for a ToS summary
A useful AI ToS summary should:
- Extract and clearly label the core topics: data collection, data sharing, user rights, retention, security commitments, third‑party sharing, jurisdiction/venue, termination, and changes to the agreement.
- Provide direct evidence: point to specific sections or clause text so readers can verify the claim.
- Highlight red flags: nondisclosure of data recipients, broad data‑use grants, automatic renewals, mandatory arbitration, or asymmetrical termination rights.
- Offer actionable guidance: what to change in settings, what to audit, or whether legal review is recommended.
ChatGPT and Perplexity tended to meet more of these criteria in the cited comparison: ChatGPT delivered an organized, multi‑section summary with useful talking points, while Perplexity condensed the essentials into a compact, citation‑rich nugget that still felt complete.
How the top performers differed (practical takeaways)
ChatGPT — depth, structure, and readable detail
ChatGPT’s summary approach in the test leaned toward a long‑form, organized layout:
multiple sections, each with bullet points, end‑section talking points, and readable plain language. That format works well when you want a thorough walkthrough without reading the full ToS yourself.
Strengths:
- Comprehensive structure that maps to legal topics.
- Readable prose that lowers the barrier for non‑lawyers.
- Good for users who want both the gist and enough detail to act.
Caveats:
- Longer summaries require more reading time than ultra‑short digests.
- ChatGPT’s factual reliability depends on the prompt, model version, and whether it can access the live page or only a pasted excerpt.
Perplexity — compact, citation‑forward synthesis
Perplexity’s output was shorter but dense with the key points. It emphasized the “what, why, and your rights” structure and often paired claims with direct links to relevant sections. That made it feel efficient and verifiable — ideal when you need a quick, defensible briefing.
Strengths:
- Concise yet comprehensive: hits the major categories without excess verbiage.
- Provenance emphasis: built‑in citations reduce the extra work of back‑checking.
Caveats:
- The brevity can hide nuance; if a clause has conditional language, a short summary can miss caveats.
Where other assistants fell short
- Microsoft Copilot: produced an overview but was too terse and left out substantive details in the test, making it less useful for reading legal obligations.
- Google Gemini and Anthropic Claude: tended toward brief summaries that captured high‑level points but didn’t always expand on conditional or nuanced clauses.
- xAI Grok and Meta AI: Grok offered a readable summary with pros/cons analysis, while Meta AI’s output was the briefest and least comprehensive in the sample.
These observed differences mirror broader comparative testing that shows
design choices matter: systems optimized for citation and research do better at verifiable summaries; generalist copilots aimed at productivity may prioritize short answers and workflow integrations over legal completeness.
The strengths: what AI does well with ToS
- Saves time: AI reduces hours of reading to minutes of digestible content, especially useful for long corporate privacy policies or multi‑page ToS documents.
- Standardizes the reading: the same prompt yields comparable structure across multiple documents, making it easier to compare policies.
- Flags and highlights: assistants can mark Renewal clauses, Data‑sharing blocks, and Mandatory Arbitration quickly.
- Scales: for teams that must review dozens of vendor agreements, an AI workflow that extracts key clauses into a checklist is a pragmatic win.
These benefits explain why researchers and product teams are building specialized interfaces (e.g., ToS‑focused readers and contract‑summarizers) that layer plain English, visual highlights, and contextual examples on top of generative models. Academic work like TermSight explores this problem space explicitly and finds measurable improvements in user comprehension when AI is used to highlight relevance and power imbalances in contracts.
The risks and failure modes you must watch
AI summarization is powerful, but it is not a substitute for legal review or critical verification. The most important risks:
- Hallucination and oversimplification: models occasionally invent specific details or paraphrase in ways that change legal meaning. Independent audits show that assistants still make substantive errors on jurisdictional rules, numerical thresholds, and conditional rights — errors that can be costly if acted on.
- Loss of nuance: a clause that looks benign on a first pass (e.g., “we may share aggregated data”) could have hidden exceptions or broad delegations; concise summaries sometimes suppress the conditional language that matters.
- Provenance illusions: an answer that looks confident does not guarantee fidelity. Citation presence helps but does not eliminate the need to read the cited clause directly — citations can be selective or truncated. Perplexity’s citation focus reduces this risk, but users must still check the original text.
- Privacy and data exposure: uploading contract text or pasting URLs into consumer AI services can expose potentially sensitive business data. Enterprise contracts and model‑use clauses vary; consumer tiers often allow vendors to use prompts and outputs for model training unless a commercial, non‑training agreement applies. Verify the vendor’s data‑handling policy or use an enterprise plan that explicitly excludes training use.
- Agentic browsing and paywalls: AI browsers and agentic assistants that “read” behind paywalls or operate across subscriber sessions create legal and ethical questions about content reuse and data access. If you depend on an assistant that scrapes or reconstructs gated content, the provenance trail becomes more complex.
- Security surface: research and press coverage have raised concerns about tool vulnerabilities (for example, agentic browser features and extension APIs). Keep client software patched and be wary of advanced integrations that require elevated permissions. Recent public disputes highlight the need for careful security review of “Comet”‑style agentic browser features.
Practical, journalist‑grade checklist for using AI to summarize ToS
When you ask an AI to summarize a ToS, use a structured, verifiable workflow:
- Start with a precise prompt: “Analyze and summarize this ToS page at . Produce:
[LIST]
[*]A 6‑point exec...s-agreements-and-these-two-tools-did-it-best/