Terms of Service

Effective Date: 30.12.25
Last Updated: 30.12.25

These Terms of Service (“Terms”) govern access to and use of ElectionCandidates.org (“Platform”, “Website”, “we”, “us”, “our”). By accessing or using the Platform, you agree to be legally bound by these Terms. If you do not agree, you must not use the Platform.

1) Platform Status and Purpose

What this clause is trying to do

This section is doing four important jobs: Positioning: You’re an independent civic information platform, not a campaign tool or government body. Neutrality defence: “Non-partisan, no endorsement” reduces allegations of bias and election interference. Authority disclaimer: “Not an official electoral authority” reduces consumer deception risk. Public-interest framing: “Transparency/research/public-interest” supports lawful processing arguments in privacy law and helps defend publication decisions. This is the right foundation.

Where it is legally strong

Defamation / reputational disputes: Neutrality + public-interest framing helps show you are not acting maliciously and are providing civic information (still not a full defence, but helpful). Regulatory perception: Regulators often assess whether your platform looks like an official service—your wording avoids that.

Where it’s still vulnerable (and why)

“Publicly available” is not a free pass under GDPR/UK GDPR
Even if the information is public, you still need a lawful basis, transparency, accuracy controls, and objection/correction pathways. Your ToS clause should never imply “public data = no rights”. (GDPR territorial scope and rules apply even to public data processing.) GDPR+1

Election context increases sensitivity
Election/candidate platforms face heightened risk around: Accuracy (a single wrong statement can trigger legal threats) Doxxing (private address/phone numbers) Impersonation (fake campaign accounts/messages) Content manipulation (coordinated edits/reports)

So your “purpose” clause must be paired with enforceable operational clauses (corrections, doxxing ban, impersonation policy, notice-and-action).

“Public-interest purposes” is not a GDPR lawful basis by itself
Under GDPR, you must map processing to lawful bases (Article 6) and—if special category data is involved—Article 9 conditions. A ToS purpose statement is helpful framing, but the Privacy Policy must do the legal heavy lifting and the ToS should cross-reference it clearly.

Best upgrades to make this section regulator-safe

Add two short “hardening” sentences that do a lot of work: Transparency / authority clarity
“The Platform is not affiliated with any election commission, government, or political party.”Non-targeting commitment (important for election platforms)
“We do not provide political advertising or political targeting based on users’ personal data.”Why this matters: it reduces exposure to claims that you’re a political influence tool, and it complements your Privacy Policy position on profiling.

2) Geographic Scope & Localised Enforcement

Why you need this section

A “global” platform is exposed to conflicting laws. This section is meant to:acknowledge mandatory regional laws, and prevent your ToS from being attacked as misleading or unfair.

EU: What you must get right

A) GDPR applicability (territorial scope)

GDPR can apply even if you’re outside the EU if you: offer services to people in the EU, or monitor behaviour in the EU (e.g. analytics/profiling). GDPR+1 

Upgrade suggestion: In EU scope, mention that the GDPR applies where required “under Article 3” (without over-lawyering).

B) DSA applicability and why it affects your ToS wording

If your platform hosts user submissions (corrections, comments, uploads), you may be treated as an intermediary service and must include content moderation disclosures in ToS.

DSA Article 14 requires ToS to include:

restrictions imposed on users, and your content moderation policies, procedures, measures and tools, including (where relevant) algorithmic decision-making and human review, plus internal complaint-handling rules. eu-digital-services-act.com+2OUP Academic+2

Practical meaning: The EU clause should not just say “DSA applies”. It must connect to actual ToS text: reporting mechanism,how moderation decisions are made, appeal/complaint handling. If you don’t include those, your ToS can be criticised as non-transparent under the DSA.

C) EU consumer law: “unfair terms” risk

EU consumer rules can make unfair or non-transparent standard terms non-binding. A classic failure is “we can change anything anytime” or “we’re not liable for anything” without fairness/clarity. The Unfair Contract Terms Directive is the key baseline. European Commission

Upgrade suggestion: Add a fairness sentence: “We will not enforce any term to the extent it is prohibited by applicable consumer law, and mandatory consumer rights remain unaffected.”This helps defend against “unfair terms” challenges.

UK: What you must get right

A) UK GDPR + Data Protection Act 2018

Your UK clause is correct as a headline. The critical operational point is: you must be clear whether you are a controller or processor. Most platforms like yours are controllers because you determine purposes/means of processing (publishing, organising, moderating). The UK ICO guidance is explicit that controllers carry primary responsibility for compliance. ICO+1

Upgrade suggestion: In ToS, don’t over-define controller/processor (that belongs in Privacy Policy), but ensure the ToS points to: “Privacy Policy explains our role and your rights.”

B) UK consumer law fairness

UK consumer protection can also challenge unfair terms (similar spirit to the EU approach). So mirror the fairness caveat.

United States (US)

For users in the US: These Terms operate subject to applicable federal and state laws. No waiver of statutory consumer protections is intended. Nothing in these Terms limits rights that cannot be lawfully excluded in your jurisdiction.

3) Eligibility — deep analysis

What the clause achieves

Sets a minimum age gate to reduce exposure to children’s-data rules and “minor consent” complexity. Supports your position that the platform is intended for adult civic engagement, not children.

Where it is legally helpful (EU/UK/US)

GDPR/UK GDPR: If minors use the platform and you process their personal data, you enter a more sensitive area (especially if any services could be seen as “offered directly to a child”). Setting 18+ is a risk-reduction move, though it’s not a complete shield if minors still access.

US: Helps reduce COPPA exposure (under-13) in practice, although COPPA compliance depends on whether you knowingly collect from children, not only what your terms say.

The vulnerability: an age clause alone is not enough

Regulators and courts treat “18+ only” as partly cosmetic unless you also: avoid collecting unnecessary personal data from anonymous visitors, avoid features that encourage children to submit personal information, and have a clear policy for accidental collection. If you have contact forms or user submission features, minors can still submit data. The legal strength comes from process, not just the statement.

Best-practice upgrades (high impact, minimal text)

Add two operational lines (very useful for GDPR/UK GDPR credibility):

1. No intentional collection from children “We do not knowingly collect personal data from children.”

2. Removal mechanism “If you believe a child has provided personal data, contact us and we will take appropriate steps to delete it.”

This ties the eligibility clause to a real compliance action (and matches what regulators expect).

Optional (but strong) upgrade for election platforms

Because election issues are sensitive, add: “Users must not submit personal data about minors (including in candidate pages, reports, or attachments).”

This is particularly important if users can upload documents (photos of IDs, school records, etc.).

4) Content Classification

This section is crucial. It’s one of the most legally valuable parts of a platform ToS, because it separates two legal worlds:

Editorial content: you are effectively acting as a publisher (higher responsibility, but also clearer editorial rights).

User-submitted content: you are acting as a host/moderator (DSA-style transparency obligations; notice-and-action; potential safe-harbour style arguments depending on jurisdiction).

4A) Editorial Content — what it achieves

Claims “compiled from public records, official statements, and reputable sources.” Asserts “published under editorial discretion.” This is excellent because it: supports a “public interest information” narrative, supports your right to edit, curate, contextualise, and remove, and helps defend your “right to label or correct” entries.

Editorial content vulnerabilities (election-specific)

“Reputable sources” is vague
If you’re challenged, a complainant will say “your source isn’t reputable.”
Better is to define “reputable” functionally, not morally.

Upgrade: define “sources may include official electoral registers, government publications, recognised news outlets, and candidate/campaign statements.”

2. Accuracy standard needs a procedure, not just a claim
   You don’t need to promise perfection—but you should commit to a corrections process and reasonable verification steps. That reduces defamation risk and increases trust.

3. Public data ≠ unrestricted data
   If editorial content contains personal data, your Privacy Policy must cover lawful basis, retention, and rights. The ToS should simply point to those policies (it must not try to be the privacy notice).

4B) User-Submitted Content — what it achieves

You’ve defined it as: “Corrections, feedback, reports, or documentation” and “subject to moderation and verification.”

This is the right direction, but for EU users you must be careful because once you say “moderation,” the DSA expects transparency about moderation rules and processes in the ToS (not just a promise). In other words, Section 4B is your gateway to a DSA-compliant ToS.

User content vulnerabilities (and fixes)

Implied promise to verify everything
The phrase “subject to moderation and verification” can be interpreted as “you verify all user submissions.” That can backfire if something slips through.

Better legal phrasing:

“We may review, moderate, and (where appropriate) verify submissions, but we do not guarantee verification of all user-submitted content.”

This keeps you protected.

2. You need a clear “no doxxing / no defamation / no impersonation” connection
   For election platforms, user submissions are the main risk vector. Content classification should link to: prohibited content categories, evidence standards for corrections, what happens during disputes (restrict, label, remove).

3. DSA-style notice-and-action should be referenced here
   At minimum, add: “Users may report illegal content via our notice mechanism described in Section X.” Because otherwise this section looks incomplete under EU transparency expectations.

5. Accuracy, Corrections & Right of Rectification

We take reasonable steps to maintain accuracy.

You may request: Correction of inaccurate information. Contextual clarification. Removal of unlawfully published personal data. Requests must include sufficient evidence and identification of the disputed content. Editorial decisions remain at our discretion, subject to applicable law.

6. Candidate Verification & Impersonation Policy

6.1 Verification

Candidates or authorised representatives may request verification by providing: Official campaign or institutional contact evidence. Identity confirmation or authorisation documents. Verification does not imply endorsement.

6.2 Impersonation

The following are strictly prohibited: Pretending to be a candidate, campaign, or official entity. Submitting false statements on behalf of a candidate. Creating misleading or deceptive representations. Confirmed impersonation results in immediate removal and potential access termination.

7. Prohibited Conduct

You must not:Publish defamatory, misleading, or false information. Publish private personal data (home address, private phone/email), Harass, threaten, or intimidate individuals. Use automated scraping, harvesting, or profiling tools. Interfere with Platform security or integrity

8. Digital Services Act (DSA) – Moderation & Notice-and-Action (EU Users)

8.1 Reporting Illegal or Harmful Content

EU users may report content by submitting: The URL/location of the content. A description of the issue. Supporting evidence where available

8.2 Moderation Actions

Possible actions include: Removal, Restriction, Labelling or correction, Account suspension

8.3 Appeals

Where required by law, affected users may request reconsideration of moderation decisions.

Moderation is conducted neutrally, proportionately, and without political bias.

9. User-Submitted Content Licence

By submitting content, you grant ElectionCandidates.org a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, store, and display the content solely for Platform operation, moderation, and improvement.

You confirm:You have the legal right to submit the content, The content is accurate to the best of your knowledge. The content does not infringe third-party rights

10. Intellectual Property & Database Rights

All Platform structure, databases, and original content are protected by copyright and database-rights laws.

You may: Access and share content for non-commercial, informational purposes

You may not: Scrape, copy, sell, or commercially exploit content without written permission

11. Privacy & Data Protection (Aligned Clause)

All personal data processing is governed by our Privacy Policy, which explains: Categories of personal data processed. Legal bases (GDPR Articles 6 & 9),Retention periods, Data subject rights, International transfers. These Terms do not replace the Privacy Policy.

12. Cookies & Tracking (Aligned Clause)

Cookies and similar technologies are governed by our Cookie Policy, including consent mechanisms where required by law.

13. No Advice Disclaimer

Content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute:Political advice, Legal advice, Electoral or voting guidance

14. Third-Party Links

External links are provided for reference only. We do not control or endorse third-party content or privacy practices.

15. Suspension & Termination

We may restrict or terminate access where: These Terms are violated, Legal compliance requires action. Platform integrity or safety is threatened

16. Limitation of Liability

To the maximum extent permitted by law: The Platform is provided “as is” We are not liable for indirect or consequential losses. We are not responsible for reliance on Platform content. Mandatory liabilities under applicable law are not excluded.

17. Indemnification

You agree to indemnify and hold harmless ElectionCandidates.org from claims arising from: Your misuse of the Platform. Violation of these Terms. Infringement of rights or laws

18. Changes to These Terms

We may update these Terms periodically. Continued use constitutes acceptance of the revised Terms.

19. Governing Law & Jurisdiction

EU users: Laws of the EU Member State of establishment, subject to EU law. UK users: Laws of England and Wales. US users: Laws of the State, USA, Bangladesh Mandatory local laws prevail where applicable.

20. Contact

For legal, moderation, or compliance matters:

Email: legal@electioncandidates.org
Website: ElectionCandidates.org