I don't see anything objectionable in here. What do you take issue with? There's always an onus on customers to ensure that the service being provided will actually meets their needs.
Generally speaking, I agree with you in principle, but I think the aim here is to basically be able to escape a big lawsuit if a company uses them but screws up the implementation and doesn't follow directions, then faces a loss, then sues Evervault to get their money back. It's not Evervault's fault if you can't follow simple directions, in other words. It's also not their fault if you use them for 99% of things but your dev team just slips up and forgets to integrate some piece with Evervault at some point along the way, thus creating a vector for data leakage and/or attack. Can't fix stupid :-)
But yeah I see your point too - you don't go by "what I think they intend", what gets argued in court is the LETTER of the law, not necessarily its intent. Both sides have a point here.
Oh - fair enough. I tend to treat all marketing/advertizing copy as a (not even necessarily close) approximation of the actual specs, anyway, so the fact that the tagline isn't borne out by the actual implementation didn't even strike me as incongruous. But yes, you're right that those don't line up.
As a sibling commenter said, though - it's not inherently suspicious that the company's covering their ass in the case of an incompetent user.
