Built TermsGuard to explain contracts in plain English — looking for feedback
Most people never read the terms they accept. I built TermsGuard to turn contracts, ToS, and privacy policies into plain-English summaries, risk flags, Q&A, and PDFs. The product works — the hard part is whether the pain at “I Agree” is strong enough to change behavior.
Trending on Indie Hackers
The product’s hardest question is not whether summaries are useful; it is whether the user has enough urgency to act on one. I’d segment the first cohort by document-triggered intent: a lease, freelance agreement, renewal, or privacy policy all create different decisions and risk tolerance. Then make the output end with one concrete next step, such as “ask for this clause to change” or “compare these two terms,” rather than only a risk score. I’d also track whether users return with a second document or share a question with someone else; that is stronger evidence of recurring value than a one-time upload. Which document type is producing the most specific follow-up questions so far?
Agreed — urgency is more important than merely providing a “useful summary.”
Most specific follow-ups so far have come from freelance agreements, leases, and service terms that include renewal and cancellation language. These situations lead to concrete questions. In contrast, privacy policies generate a high volume of inquiries, but the questions tend to be more general.
It’s more effective to end with a clear next step, such as “ask to change this clause” or “compare these two terms,” rather than just giving a passive risk score. Additionally, return visits and shared questions are the key retention signals that hold more significance than a one-time upload.
The pain question is the right one to be worried about. People know they're signing something they didn't read, and they do it anyway, so the discomfort clearly isn't enough on its own to change behavior.
Where it might flip is when there's a specific decision attached. Nobody reads a social app's terms. But someone about to sign a lease, a freelance contract, or a service agreement with a cancellation clause has an actual thing at stake in that moment. That feels like a different user than "person who wants to be more informed in general."
Are your early users coming in with a specific document they're worried about, or are they mostly just curious and testing it on something random? That split would tell you a lot about which one you're actually building for.
Agreed — that split matters.
Early use suggests the stronger cases are specific documents with something at stake (lease, freelance contract, service agreement, privacy policy before signup). Curiosity runs are weaker: paste something random, skim, leave.
So the product is more “decision support at the document” than “become more informed in general.”
The harder problem is still showing up at that moment. Open to how you’d attack the trigger side.
The “I Agree” moment is a very specific point of friction. Curious what users actually ask TermsGuard about most when they put a real contract through it.
Good question.
In real life, people don’t ask about abstract legal theory. They ask about the decision in front of them:
• Can they sell/share my data?
• Is there auto-renewal or a hard cancellation path?
• What happens to my content/account if I leave?
• Am I giving up the right to sue/forced into arbitration?
• Who is liable if something goes wrong?
The pattern is less “explain the whole contract” and more “tell me what I’m about to agree to that I’ll regret later.”
That’s why the risk flags matter as much as the summary — users want the few points that change the “I Agree” decision, not a full legal brief.