A few months ago I was working with a lawyer in preparing terms for Zemanta's services. I'm therefore quite well acquainted with the reasons that particular terms are included in the contract you implicitly agree to when accessing Zemanta's services. Lawyers are pessimistic people and their job is to protect the company from all liabilities, no matter how improbable they might see at the moment. That's why terms of services are extensive and full of obscure details, and that's why the terms of service contains only provisions safeguarding the organization providing the services, while the users of the service seems to be left to their own devices. Well, I'm pretty sure that such one-sided worldview wouldn't pass a constitutional court review, at least in Europe. I don't know much about laws governing terms of online services or of any constitutional reviews of terms of services, but I feel I should know more about it. So if you're a law expert yourself, please provide some information in the comments how European and/or USA law treats terms of services and what are the implications for a normal person using online services such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others.