1. What the document is: Google's "Generative AI - Prohibited Use Policy," a conduct policy applying to "Google products and services that refer to this policy" (i.e., a shared policy across multiple Google GenAI surfaces, not product-specific).

What this wiki found — complete, every page

AI trainingRoyalty-freeSublicensablePerpetual / irrevocableTransferableDerivative works

Presence facts, not verdicts — each flagged term links to its definition and the exact clause on this page. Absence of a badge means the term isn't currently flagged here, not that the page is risk-free.

Google Generative AI Services – Acceptable Use Policy

Dataset: GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) — 11 AI services, 2025–present

GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) is this wiki’s Generative-AI dataset: raw policy snapshots captured by the Open Terms Archive genai-eu project across 11 GenAI providers (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, DeepSeek, Google Generative AI Services, Le Chat, Llama API, Meta AI, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Qwen Chat, xAI). Unlike PGAv2, GenGA has no pre-tagged risk scores — all risk scoring and keyword tagging on these pages is LLM-assigned by direct reading, spanning 2025–present.

Note: This page contains documented policy clauses. Risk assessment is qualitative and context-dependent. For analysis of patterns across platforms, see:

Source: sources/GenGA/Google Generative AI Services/Acceptable Use Policy/ (raw Markdown captures, Open Terms Archive genai-eu dataset — no pre-tagged JSONL exists for this source) Last updated: 2025-11-11 (only capture in this dataset)

Note on methodology: No pre-computed risk_score/keyword fields exist for this source. Keyword tags on this page are LLM-assigned. Treat as first-pass analysis, not externally verified ground truth. This wiki’s risk-scoring system was retired project-wide on 2026-06-21 (see methodology.md §4) — no page, GenGA included, computes or displays a numeric risk score.

Overview

1. What the document is: Google’s “Generative AI - Prohibited Use Policy,” a conduct policy applying to “Google products and services that refer to this policy” (i.e., a shared policy across multiple Google GenAI surfaces, not product-specific).

2. Input rights: Not addressed — purely a conduct policy.

3. Output restrictions: §4.5 bans “Misrepresenting the provenance of generated content by claiming it was created solely by a human, in order to deceive.” This is narrower than a blanket AI-disclosure mandate — it only bans deceptive misrepresentation, not silence about AI involvement in general — so it is not tagged under this wiki’s ai_disclosure concept, which tracks affirmative disclosure requirements rather than anti-deception bans.

4. Non-explicit predatory clauses: None found — no Feedback clause, no “improve services” language; this document is entirely a content/conduct policy.

5. Regulatory references: None found — no GDPR or EU AI Act citation.

6. Regional variation: Not addressed in this document.

7. Key risk to users: Low. This is the most narrowly-scoped AUP-equivalent found in this dataset so far — exclusively a list of prohibited generation/distribution activities (illegal content, security compromise, hateful/explicit content, misinformation), with a discretionary “educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic” exception at the end.

No AI-training, data-licensing, or feedback-rights clauses found — this document is purely behavioral/content-restriction, similar in kind to ChatGPT’s and Claude.ai’s Acceptable Use Policies but without those policies’ explicit AI-disclosure or competing-model/distillation clauses.

Regulatory & Research Context

Davidson et al. (2026), who directly studied Google among their five sampled providers, build their analysis around “regulatory gray areas” that create uncertainty for legitimate use; this policy’s §4.5 ban on “misrepresenting the provenance of generated content… in order to deceive” is narrower than an affirmative disclosure mandate, leaving exactly the kind of ambiguity (what counts as non-deceptive silence about AI involvement) that their framework highlights. Edwards et al. (2025) frame such narrowly-scoped conduct policies within the “platformisation paradigm,” in which providers position themselves as neutral intermediaries — consistent with this AUP’s purely behavioral scope and its lack of any AI-disclosure or training-related obligations on Google itself.

Changes Summary

Date	What changed
2025-11-11	Baseline and only version captured in this dataset (“Last modified: 17 December 2024”).

Version History

2025-11-11

Explicit AI clause: YES
Non-explicit predatory: NO
Flagged keywords: (none — see Overview point 3)

Clause: anti-deception (not separately concept-tagged)

Misrepresenting the provenance of generated content by claiming it was created solely by a human, in order to deceive.