For years, contracts and product documentation lived in separate worlds. If you wanted to understand how software actually worked, you talked to the product team, read the technical documentation, or sat through a product demo. If you wanted to understand the legal relationship between the parties, you opened the contract.
That division made sense because software itself was relatively predictable. The product documentation explained the features. The contract explained payment terms, warranties, liability, and a handful of legal obligations. Each document served a different purpose, and there was very little overlap between them.
Why Experience Still Matters In An AI-Driven Legal Industry
A conversation with Trustpoint.One CEO Christopher Gallagher.
Artificial intelligence is changing that distinction in ways I don’t think we’ve fully appreciated.
In my experience, enterprise AI contracts are becoming some of the most important product documents customers receive. They no longer simply allocate legal risk. Increasingly, they explain how the technology behaves, what it does with customer data, where its boundaries lie, and what customers can realistically expect once the system is deployed.
The Questions Customers Really Want Answered
Think about the conversations surrounding enterprise AI today.
From ‘Vendor’ To ‘Partner’: How LexisNexis Is Deepening Law Firm Relationships
The company is emphasizing ‘white glove service’ in the AI era. Here’s what the initiative is delivering for clients.
Customers want to know whether their data will be used to train future models. They want to understand who owns prompts, inputs, and AI-generated outputs. They ask whether their information remains isolated from other customers and whether they can opt out of model training. They also want transparency around human review, model limitations, security controls, and what happens when the technology produces inaccurate, biased, or potentially infringing results.
Those questions certainly have legal implications.
But they are also product questions.
In many cases, they are the very questions customers would traditionally expect to find answered in technical documentation. They want to understand how the product operates, what guardrails exist, and where responsibility shifts from the vendor to the customer.
Increasingly, the clearest answers aren’t found in marketing materials or product manuals.
They’re found in the contract.
Contracts Are Explaining Product Behavior
That strikes me as one of the more interesting developments in enterprise AI contracting.
Historically, contracts described promises. They explained what each party agreed to do and what would happen if something went wrong. They weren’t intended to teach customers how a product actually functioned.
Today’s AI agreements are different.
Many of them describe whether customer information is retained, how data is processed, when humans may become involved in reviewing outputs, how models are updated, what limitations apply to certain features, and what assumptions customers should or should not make about system performance.
Those provisions aren’t simply allocating legal risk.
They’re describing operational behavior.
In some respects, they have become the most authoritative description of the product itself because contractual commitments usually receive far more scrutiny than sales presentations or marketing websites. Vendors are willing to say many things during a product demonstration. The contract is where they’re willing to make legally enforceable commitments.
That’s an important distinction.
Predictability Is Becoming A Product Feature
I also think this reflects a broader change in how enterprise customers evaluate AI.
Not very long ago, most conversations focused on capability. Everyone wanted to know what the technology could do. Could it summarize documents? Draft emails? Analyze contracts? Generate code? The emphasis was on features and performance.
Today, capability is only part of the equation.
Customers also want predictability.
They want confidence that the product will behave consistently, that governance controls actually exist, and that the system can be deployed in environments where regulators, auditors, security teams, and executive leadership are likely to ask difficult questions.
Those aren’t abstract concerns. They’re practical business questions that arise during procurement, implementation, and ongoing governance.
The answers increasingly come from negotiated contractual language rather than glossy product brochures.
The Lawyer’s Role Is Expanding
That shift also changes what legal departments are being asked to do.
Reviewing an AI agreement is no longer limited to negotiating indemnities or adjusting liability caps. Lawyers are increasingly evaluating representations about technical architecture, data flows, governance processes, security controls, and operational commitments that will directly influence how the product functions inside the organization.
In other words, contract review has become a form of product review.
That doesn’t mean lawyers suddenly replace engineers or product managers. It does mean legal teams are spending much more time understanding how technology operates because the contract itself increasingly reflects those operational realities.
I’ve found that this also changes conversations with internal stakeholders. Product teams, privacy professionals, information security, procurement, compliance, and legal all end up reviewing many of the same provisions because they each see different risks hiding inside the same paragraph.
A clause that looks routine from a commercial perspective may fundamentally change how customer data is handled or how an AI feature can be used after implementation.
The Contract Has Become Part Of The Product
I suspect this trend will only accelerate.
As AI systems become more sophisticated, enterprise customers will continue asking for greater transparency about how those systems operate. Vendors will respond by making more detailed contractual commitments because enterprise buyers increasingly expect those assurances before approving deployment.
Over time, those commitments may become just as important as the technical documentation itself.
That represents a subtle but meaningful shift. Contracts have always documented legal obligations between two parties. Increasingly, they also document the operational characteristics of the technology being purchased.
For procurement teams, that makes AI agreements an important source of technical due diligence. For product teams, it means contractual language has become part of the customer experience. And for legal departments, it means reviewing AI contracts now requires understanding not only legal risk but also how the underlying technology behaves in practice.
We still tend to think of contracts as legal documents.
When it comes to artificial intelligence, they’re becoming something more.
They are increasingly explaining the product itself, often in greater detail and with greater accountability than any marketing brochure or help center ever could. If that trend continues, the most important product documentation for enterprise AI may not live on a support website.
It may be sitting inside the contract that legal negotiated before the software was ever deployed.
Olga V. Mack is the CEO of TermScout, where she builds legal systems that make contracts faster to understand, easier to operate, and more trustworthy in real business conditions. Her work focuses on how legal rules allocate power, manage risk, and shape decisions under uncertainty. A serial CEO and former General Counsel, Olga previously led a legal technology company through acquisition by LexisNexis. She teaches at Berkeley Law and is a Fellow at CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics. She has authored several books on legal innovation and technology, delivered six TEDx talks, and her insights regularly appear in Forbes, Bloomberg Law, VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and Above the Law. Her work treats law as essential infrastructure, designed for how organizations actually operate.