Marketing vs. Legal: Peak Behind the Curtains of Data Extraction
How companies are publicly saying one thing, while secretly extracting data from communities.
If you want to know what a company actually believes, don’t read their marketing. Read their legal filings.
Marketing is what a company wants you to believe. Legal filings are what they’re willing to argue under oath. And when those two things contradict each other, the legal position is the real one. Every time.
Adobe: The Case Study
Adobe markets itself as an AI company that gives creators choice and the ability to opt out of AI training. On their website, they feature AI Ethics principles about “respecting creators’ choice and control.” They promote “Do Not Train” credentials. They talk about compensating creators for their contributions. It sounds great.
Now here’s what they’re doing in the legal system.
They used thousands — if not millions — of creators’ work to train Firefly and Sensei without explicit permission. When I challenged it, they argued that the phrase “new features and services [to promote my work]” in the contributor agreement was broad enough to cover anything forever. They’re fighting in court now to ensure that any company moving forward can use your content without permissions.
Think about what that means. They are fighting in court to establish that a pre-AI contract clause covers anything, including AI training. If they win, it sets a precedent that any contributor agreement with “new features” language is a blank check for AI use. That doesn’t protect creator choice. That guts it.
They publicly state they believe creators should have a choice in how their work is used in AI. And in practice, they are fighting to make sure that choice doesn’t matter.
The marketing and the legal position are saying two completely different things.
Why This Pattern Matters
Adobe isn’t the only company doing this. They’re just the one I have firsthand experience with.
Across the tech industry, there’s a pattern. The marketing page says “we respect your privacy.” The terms of service say “we can use your data for developing new products and services.” The privacy label in the App Store says “no data collected.” An investor tells me that same company used the data to build AI models [and suggested I do the same].
The gap between marketing and practice is where creators get hurt. Because most people make decisions based on the marketing. They see “we respect creators” and they believe it. They don’t go read the legal filings. They don’t search for court petitions. They don’t cross-reference the privacy policy with the terms of service. And the companies know that.
That gap is the whole strategy. Say the right things publicly so nobody looks too closely at what you’re doing legally.
So I’m Going to Test Them
In the spirit of identifying companies that say one thing but whose terms and practices say another, I’m starting something new.
I’m going to dig into companies’ actual data practices and test them against their stated policies. Not just reading the terms — actually testing what happens when you use their platforms, submit a data request, when you ask for deletion, when you try to exercise the rights they claim you have.
I’ve already done this on a personal level. I asked a family album app for copies of my data and they told me GDPR doesn’t apply because I’m in the US. That told me everything I needed to know. Now I want to do it more systematically and share the results with you.
Here’s what I’ll be looking at for each company:
What does the marketing say about data and privacy? What do the actual terms of service say? What happens when you use the platform? What happens when you submit a data access or deletion request? Do the App Store privacy labels match the reality? Is there a gap between the public position and the legal position?
I’ll be documenting everything and sharing the findings here.
What I Need from You
I want you to tell me which companies to start with.
Which companies have you trusted with your data, your content, your voice, your images — and something felt off? Which platforms have marketing that says all the right things but gave you a gut feeling that the reality might be different? Which terms of service have you signed that you wish you understood better?
Drop the company name in my DM (@gerald_lg_carter). I’ll start with the ones you care about most. And I’ll be sure to include you on the journey.
Because if companies are going to say one thing and do another, someone should be checking. Might as well be us.
“Marketing is what they want you to believe. Legal filings are what they actually believe.”
