Consumers’ natural reluctance to trust what they do not understand has profound implications in the digital age, especially when it comes to the ubiquitous yet impenetrable terms of use contracts that underpin so many online services. These dense legal documents, often exceeding thousands of words, are drafted in a manner that alienates most users, who typically scroll past them without reading. Consequently, tech companies that depend on these arcane agreements — social media giants and digital service providers — have found themselves among the least trusted corporate entities in the public eye. This pervasive mistrust highlights a pressing question: might a more transparent approach to these contracts improve consumer confidence in these businesses?
This question has been at the forefront of research conducted by Tari Dagogo-Jack, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business, in collaboration with Tim Samples, an associate professor of legal studies at the same institution. Their work, recently published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, delves into whether simplifying legal language and making user terms more accessible can enhance consumer trust in tech companies. Dagogo-Jack noted the inherent opacity of these contracts: “These contracts are incredibly long and written in a language that most people simply cannot understand.” His suggestion is straightforward — rewriting these documents in plain language might offer a pathway to building greater trust, though he warns that this solution is far from uncomplicated.
The researchers’ findings reveal that while transparency can foster trust, it is not a panacea. Indeed, their studies found that plain language summaries did boost confidence in the companies that offered them. Yet this effect was limited, suggesting that transparency alone cannot repair all the damage wrought by years of complex and often one-sided contracts. For Dagogo-Jack, who studies consumer psychology and brand perception, and Samples, who focuses on the intersections of digital agreements and international investment law, this outcome sheds light on how deeply entrenched mistrust can be in these digital relationships.
The underlying reason is simple: people naturally feel more confident when they can comprehend what is being asked of them. However, most social media contracts remain daunting, with an average of over 6,700 words of dense, intimidating legal jargon. A few pioneering platforms have begun to break this mould by incorporating plain language summaries and helpful explanatory tools. Samples observed, “We noticed that some platforms included these plain English explanations alongside the legal contract language. It made us wonder how the public would interpret such efforts and whether they would impact consumer trust.”
To test this, Dagogo-Jack and Samples designed five studies that exposed participants to different versions of terms of use agreements — some with plain language summaries, some without. They assessed how well participants understood the terms, how much trust they felt towards the company behind them, and how comfortable they would share their personal information. Participants who encountered plain language summaries reported higher levels of understanding and, subsequently, greater trust in the companies. The researchers saw a symbolic dimension at play — by making their terms of use more digestible, these companies signalled that they were acting in good faith, which fostered a sense of loyalty among users.
Yet this symbolic act also exposed a fundamental tension. Dagogo-Jack said, “The fact that you’re making it easy for me to understand is a positive sign — you’re showing that you’re on my side. But once I can read and understand what these contracts say, I might realise that you’re still taking a lot of liberties with my data.” Thus, the very clarity that engenders trust can simultaneously unearth unsettling truths about how these companies operate. This discrepancy between perception and reality offers a cautionary tale for marketers and policymakers alike. While a promising tool for improving relationships with consumers, transparency risks pulling back the curtain on practices that many users would prefer to avoid.
Indeed, some companies have already embraced this shift towards plain language, including Pinterest and Kickstarter, while others are using more creative strategies like video explainers and interactive graphics to make their policies more approachable. These innovations can potentially change how users select which companies to do business with — and, in turn, pressure companies into offering genuinely more user-friendly policies. However, the spectre of “privacy washing,” as Dagogo-Jack and Samples warn, remains the risk that companies will exploit these transparent gestures as mere marketing tactics without fundamentally changing their underlying data practices. “You’re not going to be able to summarise and animate your way to consumer trust if your entire business depends on selling people’s data,” Dagogo-Jack cautioned.
As this research suggests, the future of trust in digital services may well hinge on how companies balance this newfound emphasis on clarity and openness with the real demands of their data-driven business models. In the coming years, Dagogo-Jack and Samples plan to continue exploring how multimedia presentations and aesthetic choices in these terms of use contracts influence perceptions of trust. Ultimately, their findings highlight both an opportunity and a warning. While transparent language can open the door to more trusting relationships, it must be backed by a genuine change in how companies treat users’ data if that trust is to be more than skin deep.
More information: Tari Dagogo-Jack et al, Plain English in User Terms: Spillover Effects of Enhanced Readability on Consumer Trust, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1086/735026
Journal information: Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Provided by University of Georgia