I read TOS for the first time after this thread. Picked my current provider, random cheap VPS. Found: "we may terminate for any reason with 30 days notice." Also: "we may terminate immediately for abuse." Also: "abuse includes any activity we determine strains resources."
So they can terminate for any reason, or for no reason, or for "straining resources" which they define. I run a Minecraft server. Is that strain? Who knows.
I don't think I'll sleep well tonight.
Following this thread. Made me check my Hetzner contract. Found the "additional terms for cloud servers" which I didn't know existed. Separate document. Different cancellation rules: hourly billing, delete to stop, no "cancellation" needed.
But I have a monthly server, not hourly. Which terms apply? Both? The cloud terms say "unless otherwise agreed." Is monthly "otherwise agreed"? Probably.
I have been customer 4 years. First time I saw the additional terms. Hidden in plain sight, linked from footer, not from order flow. https://www.hetzner.com/cloud
This. The layered TOS problem. Main terms, product-specific terms, AUP, DPA, SLA, all separate documents, all cross-referencing each other.
I counted OVHcloud's layers: 7 documents for a standard VPS. TOS, CGV (French commercial terms), AUP, DPA, SLA, IP policy, and "specific conditions for VPS" which is where the actual resource limits live.
No human reads 7 documents. Olespete's spreadsheet is heroic but even he probably missed layers. I know I did until I got burned on a "specific condition" about email port 25 blocking that wasn't in TOS or AUP.
Czech perspective: we have strong consumer protection, EU law, everything. But I host in Germany because Czech providers are expensive and small. German TOS, Czech consumer, who wins?
I had dispute with OVHcloud over double-billing. Czech court? OVHcloud doesn't have presence here. French court? I'm not traveling to Roubaix. Online dispute resolution? They ignored it.
TOS is only as strong as enforcement mechanism. For cross-border EU hosting, enforcement is theoretical. I paid twice rather than fight. Cost of doing business.
Same here. Nobody reads. But I started after reading this thread. My provider's TOS has "binding arbitration in Delaware" clause. I'm in California. Delaware is 3,000 miles away.
Is that enforceable? Maybe. Against consumers, courts sometimes strike it down. But "sometimes" means I might be the test case. $50,000 in legal fees to find out? No thanks.
The arbitration clause is the whole point. Not to win disputes. To make disputing too expensive. Works perfectly.
Japan perspective: TOS often has "governing law: Japan" even for international customers. But Japanese consumer protection is weak compared to EU. No cooling-off for digital services. No mandatory refund.
I used Japanese provider for 2 years. Good service, bad TOS. Switched to Hetzner for EU protection — https://www.hetzner.com. But now my data is in Singapore or Germany, not Tokyo. Latency tradeoff.
TOS shapes architecture. Not just legal risk. Performance, compliance, data residency. All connected.
Coder here. I read TOS for API rate limits and acceptable use. Not "don't abuse," actual numbers. Requests per second, per hour, per day. Burst allowances.
Hetzner API: 3,600 requests/hour, documented, in TOS-adjacent docs. Good.
AWS: varies by service, 20+ documents, some have limits, some don't, some "we may throttle at any time."
For automation, undefined limits are worse than low limits. I can code to 3,600/hour. I cannot code to "we may throttle." My scripts fail at 3am. TOS uncertainty becomes SRE pain.
Noanspace. I read TOS for space-related hosting. Not outer space, storage space. "Unlimited" definitions, overage pricing, what happens when I hit limit.
Contabo: overage at €0.01/GB/month for object storage, clearly stated. Good.
Hetzner: storage box has hard limit, no overage possible. Also good, different model.
OVHcloud: "overage fees apply per pricing page." Pricing page changed 3 times in 2 years. TOS stable, pricing volatile. Bad.
I want TOS and pricing locked together. Change one, change both. Otherwise I'm reading fiction.
Layer21. I read TOS for... layers. Network layers, legal layers, all of it. Kidding. I read for subnet allocation and VLAN policies.
Most providers don't mention VLANs in TOS. You get what you get. Hetzner Cloud: private networks documented in product docs, not TOS, but stable. Contabo: "virtual private network" mentioned but not defined. Is it Layer 2 or Layer 3? I asked support. "It's private." Thanks.
For real network architecture, TOS silence is worse than TOS restriction. At least restriction I can plan around.
Real6. I read TOS once, found "no cryptocurrency" clause, ignored it, ran full node anyway. 6 months, no problem. Then they updated AUP, emailed "30 days to cease or terminate." I moved to Hetzner.
Hetzner's AUP says "no mining" but not "no nodes." I run Lightning node. Not mining. Gray area? Maybe. But 2 years, no issue.
TOS enforcement is pattern-based, not literal. They look for CPU abuse, not protocol. I keep CPU low, I stay invisible. Reading TOS literally is for lawyers. Operating practically is for engineers.
