legal
Legal
Six documents, each with a plain-language summary beside every clause. Numbered so you can send a colleague clause seven, and built to print cleanly when procurement asks for a copy.
Who you are contracting with
Touch Grass AB
- Legal form
- a private limited company (aktiebolag) registered in Sweden since 2024
- Registration number
- 559484-7435
- Registered office
- Idunsgatan 46, 214 46 Malmö, Sweden
- VAT number
- SE559484743501
- Governing law
- the laws of Sweden
- Supervisory authority
- Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY)
- Data protection contact
- privacy@touchgrass.consulting
- Security contact
- security@touchgrass.consulting
- Courts
- Malmö District Court (Malmö tingsrätt)
- DPO or representative
- No data protection officer is appointed, and no Article 27 representative is appointed in the United Kingdom. Privacy enquiries and data subject requests go to privacy@touchgrass.consulting.
Both parties to the data processing agreement are ordinarily established in the EEA — you where you are, and us in Malmö — and storage is in Stockholm. That does not mean nothing leaves the EEA: four AI features send text to a model provider outside it, each on an explicit click. Clause 7 of the data processing agreement names them and says what each one sends.
Terms of service
v0.5The agreement for using Inkstand. Read clauses 10, 15 and 17 before anything else.
Who needs it: Whoever signs for your organisation, and anyone who wants to know what the product does and does not promise.
19 min · 23 clauses · 29 July 2026
Privacy notice
v0.3What is collected, where it lives, what leaves the EEA, and how to get it back or have it deleted.
Who needs it: Anyone whose personal data reaches the product: users, people invited to review a post, and anyone who has filled in a form on this site.
13 min · 13 clauses · 29 July 2026
Data processing agreement
v0.3Processor terms for customers who control personal data in the product. Clause 7 is the one your data protection lead will want.
Who needs it: The person at your organisation who owns the record of processing activities, and anyone assessing us as a vendor.
12 min · 12 clauses · 29 July 2026
Sub-processors
v0.3Everyone who touches your data, and what for. Short because keeping it short is treated as a design constraint.
Who needs it: Whoever maintains your vendor register, and anyone assessing where data goes.
3 min · 4 clauses · 29 July 2026
Vulnerability disclosure policy
v0.2How to report a flaw, what happens next, and what we undertake not to do to anyone who reports one in good faith.
Who needs it: Security researchers, and the person on a vendor assessment who is looking for this line item.
5 min · 7 clauses · 29 July 2026
Accessibility statement
v0.1How this measures against WCAG 2.2 AA, surface by surface, and what to do when something stops you working. Self-assessed.
Who needs it: Anyone who needs to know whether this is usable with the assistive technology they use, and anyone whose procurement asks for a statement.
5 min · 5 clauses · 28 July 2026
How these are written
From the system, not from a template. Every one was written from what the software actually does — the region, the sub-processors, what is collected, what is retained, what leaves the EEA — because all of that is knowable from the code. A privacy notice assembled from a generator describes a hypothetical company; these describe this one, which is why they can be checked against the security page and against the product itself.
Beside every substantive clause there is a sentence in plain language saying what it means for you. The clause is the agreement; the sentence is not, and where they seem to disagree the clause wins and we would like to know, because it means the clause is badly written.
Clauses are numbered and each one is its own anchor, so a link to clause 7 opens at clause 7. Clicking the mark beside a heading copies that link. Every document prints to a clean black-on-white A4 with the version and effective date on it, which is the form procurement will want to attach to a file.
Is there a master services agreement?
No, and adding one would make this worse. A master services agreement earns its place when there are several engagements to sit under it — a statement of work, a support schedule, a professional services rate card, an order form per renewal. There is one product here, one commercial motion, and no professional services. The terms of service plus the data processing agreement are the agreement, and they contain everything an MSA would: the parties, the licence, liability, indemnity, confidentiality, termination, governing law.
Producing one now would mean maintaining a second set of terms that has to be kept consistent with the first. Two documents that disagree is a worse position for both sides to negotiate from than one that is short.
What actually happens when an enterprise asks for one: they want their own paper, not ours. That is a conversation and not a problem — an order form referencing these terms usually resolves it, and where it does not, we will sign an amended version rather than pretend the published document is untouchable. When there is a second commercial motion worth a schedule of its own, that is when a master agreement gets written, and not before.
What is deliberately not here
- A cookie policy. There are no cookies. The complete list of what is kept on your device is a six-row table in clause 4 of the privacy notice, and every row is either your session or a preference you set. That is why there is no consent banner, and being able to say it in one sentence is worth more than a separate document.
- An acceptable use policy. It is clause 11 of the terms. Splitting seven bullet points into their own document would only create another place for them to go stale.
- A service level agreement. Uptime commitments are agreed with the customers who need one, in writing, rather than published as a target with no number behind it.
- Any claim that the product "is GDPR compliant". Compliance is a property of how you use a tool, not a badge a vendor can hand you. What the system does is described precisely; the conclusion is yours to draw, and the security page answers around forty assessment questions to help you draw it.
Something here is wrong, or missing
These documents describe a system that changes weekly, and the fastest way they go stale is silently. If a clause does not match what the product does, or your counsel needs a position that is not taken here, say so and it gets fixed rather than argued about.