target-revenue/history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Synthesis.md

TRSL/CUA Jurisdiction Synthesis (WP-0004 T10)

Document status: Research artifact, Stage 0/1 (workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md T10) Not legal advice. Synthesizes T01–T09. Adopts alpha/beta working defaults per maintainer decision 2026-07-29: full specialist legal review across every jurisdiction is deferred until the framework moves out of beta, since legal and commercial exposure during build/alpha is limited and the License/CUA will be revised based on stakeholder and customer feedback before the legal framework settles. These are provisional alpha/beta adoptions, not production-final legal conclusions — see each item's note below.

---

1. Consolidated jurisdictional risk matrix

Jurisdiction	Governing-law/venue risk	Liability-cap enforceability	Data protection	Notable finding
Germany	Rome I respects B2B choice; consumer-law carve-out is the recurring risk	Transparenzgebot — clarity, not fairness, is the bar	GDPR; UK GDPR now diverging	AGB law covers B2B, not just consumer contracts
EU (general)	Same as Germany	EU Late Payment Directive fills CUA §3.5's blank for EU customers	GDPR	—
United States	Governing-law clauses generally respected; state choice matters	UCC §2-302/§2-719 unconscionability is a narrow backstop	CCPA/CPRA B2B exemption expired Jan 2023	No single "US software law" — UCC Art. 2B/UCITA never uniformly adopted
United Kingdom	—	UCTA 1977 reasonableness applies directly to a standard-form CUA	UK GDPR diverging from EU GDPR	—
Argentina	B2B respected; Ley 24.240 consumer carve-out (same pattern)	Not researched	PDPL — EU-adequate since 2003, lowest-friction case found	—
India	Foreign governing law respected by Indian courts	Contract Act §28 permits quantum caps; bars complete remedy bars	DPDPA 2023 "negative list" — more permissive than GDPR by design	—
China	Hard constraint: foreign law needs a "foreign-related" contract + vague public-interest override	Not researched	PIPL — three mandatory pathways, strictest regime found	Revised by T09: arbitration (NY Convention since 1986) is far more promising than litigation
Africa (South Africa, OHADA)	Not researched	Not researched	POPIA referenced, not researched	Genuine gap — flagged honestly, not assumed low-risk
Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Japan, Australia)	Not researched in depth	Australia's expanded UCT regime (Nov 2023) covers standard-form contracts with businesses <100 employees/$10M turnover by default	PDPA/APPI referenced, not researched	Highest-priority finding in the whole WP-0004 program — not an edge case
Global (T09)	New York Convention (~172 states) vastly outperforms any foreign-judgment enforcement regime	Draft to the strictest of Transparenzgebot / UCTA / Australian UCT simultaneously	—	Arbitration should be the default mechanism, not litigation

2. Proposed alpha/beta resolutions

License Appendix A item 6 / CUA Appendix A item 1 — Governing law and venue

Adopted for alpha/beta 2026-07-29: default to arbitration (not litigation) as the dispute-resolution mechanism for any Phase declared during alpha/beta, seated at a neutral, arbitration-mature venue (Singapore or London are the two most concretely supported by this research; final seat selection is a per-Phase or per-Licensor-entity choice, not fixed by this synthesis). This is chosen specifically because it inherits the New York Convention's enforceability reach across essentially every jurisdiction researched, including the hardest case (China), without requiring a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction litigation rider. Not yet resolved: which specific arbitral institution and substantive governing law to name — that requires knowing the actual Licensor entity's own jurisdiction (see workplans/TREV-WP-0008-governance-and-pilot-rollout.md T01), so this remains a template blank filled in per Phase/Licensor, not a single hardcoded value.

CUA Appendix A item 3 — Liability cap

Adopted for alpha/beta 2026-07-29, unchanged from V1C1: keep the fees-paid-in-12-months cap structure, but apply the cross-jurisdiction drafting principle found in T09 — state it prominently and proportionately to the actual Exhibit A fee, not as generic boilerplate. Given alpha/beta pilot fees are expected to be small, the practical exposure under this cap is itself small; full jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction enforceability confirmation (Germany/UK/Australia's three different tests) is deferred to the post-beta legal review, consistent with the maintainer's decision.

CUA Appendix A item 5 — Data protection

Adopted for alpha/beta 2026-07-29: no operative Data Processing Addendum is drafted yet. For alpha/beta, minimize data collection to what each Phase's Commercial Use Agreement strictly requires (billing contact, payment reference) and avoid processing any data that would trigger PIPL's stricter pathways or a Significant-Data-Fiduciary-level DPDPA obligation. This is a practice, not a drafted clause — the clause itself remains open pending real customer volume that would justify the drafting effort.

CUA Appendix A item 4 — Indemnification

Deliberately left unresolved, and this is the correct choice, not a gap to backfill under alpha/beta reasoning. No indemnification clause means no indemnification obligation — that is the safer default for the Licensor precisely during a stage with limited legal review, not something the alpha/beta risk-acceptance decision should relax. If a real Customer specifically requires an indemnification clause before signing, that is a signal to seek specialist input for that specific deal, not to draft a generic one now.

3. What "alpha/beta adoption" means and does not mean

• Means: these choices are good enough to declare and operate real pilot Phases under workplans/TREV-WP-0008-governance-and-pilot-rollout.md, given expected pilot-stage exposure (small fees, few customers, early-stage products) is limited, and the Licensor has explicitly accepted this risk rather than an agent silently assuming it.
• Does not mean: the License or CUA is now legally final. Every Appendix A item retains its original disclosure; this synthesis adds an "adopted for alpha/beta" status alongside the existing [LEGAL, OPEN] markers, it does not remove them. Full specialist legal review remains required before "settling down" the legal framework — i.e., before treating any of this as a stable, long-term legal position rather than a bounded-risk operating decision for the current stage.

4. Open items carried forward

• Actual arbitral institution/seat/governing law selection, once the Licensor entity (WP-0008-T01) is known.
• Full jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction liability-cap and data-protection confirmation — explicitly deferred, not abandoned.
• Africa (contract-law angle) and Singapore/Japan PDPA/APPI remain genuinely unresearched, not merely deprioritized.