You signed the Microsoft agreement.
You didn't negotiate it. Nobody does. You scrolled, you clicked, and you accepted terms that took roughly fifteen minutes to draft the parts that matter to you and roughly three years of corporate law to draft the parts that matter to them. You have no recourse if the service changes. You have no recourse if the price changes. You have no meaningful recourse at all.
Then you signed the Kaseya agreement. Same story. Datto. ConnectWise. Take your pick. Every platform you depend on handed you a contract you couldn't modify and a relationship you can't exit without dismantling your business. You accepted it because you had no real choice. The alternative was not being in business.
Fine. That's the deal. Everyone in this industry knows it even if nobody says it out loud.
Here's where it gets interesting.
You then subscribed to a service that generates legal agreements for you to present to your clients. Professionally formatted. MSP-specific language. Limitation of liability clauses. Exclusions for acts of God and acts of vendors who shall not be named. The whole apparatus. You are paying a monthly fee for the ability to do to your clients exactly what Microsoft did to you.
You call this protecting your business.
What you have actually built is a liability relay.
Microsoft could not get a small business owner in Akron to sign away their audit rights directly. They needed you in the middle. You signed it. Now your client signs your agreement, which protects you from consequences that flow from agreements you couldn't negotiate in the first place. The small business owner in Akron is at the end of a chain of contracts they never saw, none of which they could have changed, each of which was described to them as standard.
The subscription legal service didn't create this problem. It industrialized it.
There's a version of client-facing legal protection that makes sense. You are genuinely exposed. Clients do make unreasonable claims. You do need documented scope. None of that is the issue.
The issue is that most MSP agreements aren't really about scope. They're about indemnifying yourself against the consequences of tools you chose, platforms you depend on, and architectural decisions your clients had no voice in. The agreement exists so that when the vendor fails your client, the legal exposure stops with you rather than continuing to the party that actually caused the harm.
Your client doesn't know they agreed to this. They think they hired someone to handle their IT. They did not think they were absorbing downstream risk from a vendor contract negotiated between two corporations, neither of which is them.
This is not a legal critique. The agreements are probably enforceable. That's almost beside the point.
The real question is whether an industry that genuinely wants to be trusted as a strategic partner can keep building its legal infrastructure on the assumption that the client should bear risk they didn't choose, can't see, and were never told about.
The subscription service makes it easy to keep not asking that question.
Which is, of course, why it sells.
————————
The MSP Contrarian: Unstacking the Business Model
An independent publication. Not affiliated with, sponsored by, or particularly popular with any vendor in the managed services ecosystem. Subscriptions are free. Opinions are not.