The behavior of the company AdGuard

THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN PRIVACY AND ADGUARD VPN TERMS

As I mentioned before on Telegram, it’s necessary to bring to light an uncomfortable but fundamental truth. I said it wasn’t necessary to be an expert, and that’s true, but I want to make it clear that I will use basic terminology so that people who are genuinely interested in the truth and struggle to understand the complexities, despite using reasoning (it depends on many factors, such as health, for example), can benefit. This is crucial help in this day and age, and I will help them directly and without beating around the bush.

Terms “EULA” - source: AdGuard VPN for your privacy and security Privacy “Privacy Policy” - source: AdGuard VPN for your privacy and security

I’m going to work only with the most important parts of these two “documents”.

In the privacy section, mainly below the date, there’s a summary that states the following:

Summary

We do not share or sell your personal information. We are strongly committed to protecting user privacy and being as transparent as possible.

1. We don’t collect logs on VPN servers and don’t know what websites you visit.

2. We collect only the information necessary for our products and services to function properly.

3. You are not required to share your personal data with us. You can delete your information by deleting your AdGuard account at my.adguard-vpn.com or by sending us a request at privacy@adguard-vpn.com.

→ In this small section, two of the most important words appear: firmly → committed. Is it visually appealing? No. They’re just words. To verify that this is being followed in real time, AdGuard itself will have to be put to the test. Is this the most important and risky point for the company? Yes; they are obligated to comply permanently with all users of their VPN, regardless of the terrible consequences, considering the entire context, unless they decide to change those two words to something temporary or meaningless, or simply keep them but correct the other areas.

However, the terms of the EULA present two major points of criticism that the two previously mentioned clauses directly contradict:

First:

IMPORTANT: THESE TERMS OF SERVICE (“TERMS”, “EULA”) ARE A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU (AN INDIVIDUAL) AND ADGUARD SOFTWARE LIMITED (OWNER OF ALL RIGHTS, WHETHER EXCLUSIVE OR OTHERWISE, TO THE SOFTWARE). READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE INSTALLATION PROCESS AND USING THE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, OR BY PRESSING A BUTTON INDICATING YOUR ACCEPTANCE IN THE WINDOW CONTAINING THESE TERMS, OR BY TYPING THE APPROPRIATE SYMBOL(S), YOU CONFIRM YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND AGREE TO BECOME BOUND BY THESE TERMS.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE, AND/OR YOU MUST DELETE THE INSTALLED SOFTWARE.

NOTE THAT THESE TERMS REQUIRE THAT YOU AND ADGUARD SOFTWARE LIMITED SUBMIT ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THESE TERMS OR ANY BREACH THEREOF TO ARBITRATION.

Direct refutation: The argument states that upon accepting the terms (EULA), the individual is not bound by them, whether fully, partially, or minimally. The company cannot subject a person to its terms, especially when they contain contradictions and are of little value.

Second:

6. Warranty disclaimer

6.1 YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” AND AN “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. RIGHTHOLDER AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND PARTNERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS EULA, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE, AND QUIET ENJOYMENT. RIGHTHOLDER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE IS ERROR-FREE OR WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION. NO RIGHTS OR REMEDIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 or ARTICLE 2A OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC), AS IMPLEMENTED IN ANY JURISDICTION, WILL BE CONFERRED ON YOU UNLESS EXPRESSLY GRANTED HEREIN. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED, INTENDED, OR LICENSED FOR USE IN HAZARDOUS OR HIGH-RISK ENVIRONMENTS OR USE CASES REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE CONTROLS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OR OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS. RIGHTHOLDER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES.

6.2. IF APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES ANY WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS EULA, ALL SUCH WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF SUCH SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICES.

6.3. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY RIGHTHOLDER OR ITS PARTNERS, OR ITS OR THEIR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, SHALL CREATE A REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, NOR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF ANY EXPRESS REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY PROVIDED HEREIN.

6.4. RIGHTHOLDER SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY, AND YOU RELEASE RIGHTHOLDER OF ANY AND ALL LIABILITY IF THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY, OR FOR ANY FAILURE THAT ARISES OUT OF USE OF THE SOFTWARE WITH OTHER THAN A RECOMMENDED HARDWARE CONFIGURATION, PLATFORM, OR OPERATING SYSTEM.

6.5. RIGHTHOLDER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE INSTALLED BY YOU, INTENTIONALLY OR INADVERTENTLY, BY PURCHASING LICENSES OR DOWNLOADING THE SOFTWARE FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED PARTY THAT IS NOT A RIGHTHOLDER PARTNER.

6.6. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT YOUR PARTICULAR USE OF THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE LAW, THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS, OR YOUR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO THIRD PARTIES.

7. Limitation of liability

7.1. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, NEITHER RIGHTHOLDER NOR ITS SUPPLIERS OR PARTNERS SHALL BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, COVER, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR THE INABILITY TO USE EQUIPMENT OR ACCESS DATA, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF BUSINESS, LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION OR THE LIKE), ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS EULA WHETHER BASED ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, INCLUDING BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF RIGHTHOLDER OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR PARTNERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

7.2. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, RIGHTHOLDER’S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT YOU ACTUALLY PAID TO RIGHTHOLDER FOR ANY SOFTWARE OR OTHER PRODUCTS OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THIS EULA.

7.3. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY ARE INTENDED TO APPLY TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS EULA.

Direct refutation: The EULA states “no guarantees with a time limit” (point 6) and “liability” (point 7), but simultaneously claims to be subject to the law without specifying which law, how, or to what extent. A company is obligated to incorporate the relevant laws based on its arguments; this is a major weakness. The company points to the user of its VPN as responsible for its use, while simultaneously disclaiming liability (limited). This includes: no matter what we say or do, whether it has real DDoS protection or not, remaining silent if applicable (as the evidence presented earlier indicates), etc.

The fundamental question that arises here is: Are these responsibilities correct and natural? Answer: No. If they firmly claim to be committed to privacy, they are obligated to completely disregard these terms to protect the people who use their VPN, regardless of what happens in real time, not every second, minute, etc.

Overall rebuttal: AdGuard’s argument with the two “documents” is as follows: > We are firmly committed to protecting your privacy, but it is not guaranteed, and if it isn’t, we are not responsible for what happens.

That argument falls apart under scrutiny; that is the reality itself.

The result of the rebuttal: AdGuard not only demonstrates deceptive advertising, but also contradictions in its own arguments, a lack of coherence, and blatant manipulation (whether conscious or not). Whoever wrote those “documents” has made a colossal mistake.

Direct solution: Resolve the problem definitively as soon as possible, by genuinely applying virtues such as humility, sincerity, etc.

List of questions and answers that come to mind:

• Can I trust AdGuard? No. Not until their true actions are proven, because genuine (not just apparent) regret exists, but it could be ignorance or not, and opportunity is limited.
• Can I trust the enterprise DNS because it mentions DDoS protection on its website? No. Not until its actual functionality is demonstrated. The documents presented above already raise suspicions about its legitimacy.
• Can I entrust all my traffic, including my personal data, to AdGuard? No. I don’t know if they are logging anything in real time from one person or several, or from everyone, whether it’s some of their logs or all of them. This isn’t an absolute statement, but if you are truly concerned about your privacy, you should take action: don’t buy (if you haven’t already), temporarily abandon AdGuard, or abandon it completely. The choice is yours.
• Can I give AdGuard another chance if they genuinely do everything correctly? It depends. Sometimes appearances are deceiving, and it’s crucial to refute this to avoid future deception. This isn’t paranoia; it’s simply a fact of life. Therefore, we must re-examine, analyze, and question whether they truly did the right thing. This requires time, depending on the circumstances, willpower, and the ability to act with self-control.

End.