Level 1: Informational

This section is advisory.

Overview

An agent can find the published terms and conditions of a service. The terms are readable at a known URL. Proceeding with a transaction after discovering the terms constitutes affirmative consent.

The legal-context.json file points to the terms document. An agent or human that transacts after discovering the terms has implicitly accepted them. No hash, no blockchain, no signature needed.

How It Works

{
  "terms": "https://example.com/terms/v3.md"
}

1. Agent fetches /.well-known/legal-context.json
2. Agent reads the terms URL
3. Agent downloads and reads the terms document
4. Agent proceeds with the transaction (or declines)

Proceeding constitutes consent.

Legal Basis

This is consistent with the legal framework for browsewrap and clickwrap agreements under U.S. law and EU law:

U.S. law:

• E-SIGN — Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq.)
• UETA § 7 — Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Section 7 (legal effect of electronic records and signatures)
• UETA § 14 — Section 14 specifically validates contracts formed by automated electronic agents — the more directly relevant authority for agent-formed acceptance.

EU law:

• E-Commerce Directive — Directive 2000/31/EC (online contract formation)
• eIDAS — Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (electronic identification and trust services)

The difference from today's browsewrap: the terms are in a standard, machine-readable location. An agent does not need to guess where the terms are. A human does not need to hunt for a footer link. The convention itself makes the consent mechanism more robust — the terms were discoverable, and the agent proceeded.

A note on autonomous agents

The legal framework for human browsewrap is settled. Its extension to autonomous agents acting without contemporaneous human review is genuinely unsettled. Courts in 2026 have not definitively addressed implicit consent by agents operating outside any specific human-in-the-loop, and reasonable parties may disagree on whether an agent's transaction at a Level 1 service constitutes binding acceptance by the agent's principal. Higher levels — particularly Level 3 in combination with a buyer-policy gate — restore explicit human deliberation to the authorization chain where the stakes justify it.

When Level 1 Is Sufficient

Level 1 is appropriate for transactions where the terms are public, the value is low to moderate, and the primary need is discoverability rather than cryptographic proof:

• SaaS API access
• Content licensing
• Commodity purchases
• Standard subscription services

For transactions where it matters that the terms cannot be altered after the fact, see Level 2: Provable.