I'm aware of that language in the terms, but I think most of us were under the (likely mistaken) impression that the safety review flagging focused on harmful content and safety (e.g., individuals discussing threatened real-world violence), not "safety" of Anthropic's intellectual property. And that it would likely result in retention of a handful of a customer's interactions, not all of them.

If the criteria for retention justifiable as safety at Anthropic are cast very broadly in actual practice, then it opens cans of worms for a lot of customers in complying with privacy regimes, customer IP protection, etc. It also raises the question of whether at least some subset of customers from certain geos (e.g., China likely, but perhaps other geos) may just automatically have everything flagged for retention, despite the terms, based on collective abuse risk flagging of their geo.

While ZDR is available, it's not available to all types of customers and is priced at a higher tier. Undoubtedly though this may be a wakeup call to some customers who didn't realize they may need ZDR to get on the ZDR bandwagon.