Since lawyers just love engaging in language lawyering when things get to court and always use to most uncharitable interpretation of words, we have no choice but to interpret their words in the most uncharitable and technically correct fashion. In that context, let us examine their lawyer-drafted statement.
> LG smart TVs do not continuously record or transmit users’ conversations.
"or" is ambiguous in the English language. A lawyer can rightly argue that they mean exclusive or and thus they are being technically truthful as long as they both continuously record and transmit users' conversations. They can resolve this ambiguity by stating each element as a independent sentence.
"continuously" means without end. A lawyer can rightly argue that as long as the recording can end in a single instance, then they are being technically truthful.
> Speech-to-text processing begins only if a user activates a voice interaction through a supported wake-word feature or by pressing the voice (or AI) button on the remote control.
"processing begins" makes no indication as to when it ends. A lawyer can rightly argue that as long as you use a wake-word a single time or press the voice button on the remote control a single time, they can begin processing and never stop. They can resolve this ambiguity by stating that they only process audio during a session and that session has a strict maximum duration.
Also, it makes no statement as to audio processing, only speech-to-text processing. A lawyer can rightly argue that as long as they do not convert the speech to text and just directly transmit the audio they are being truthful. They can resolve this ambiguity by removing the narrowly defined "speech-to-text" and changing it to "audio". Weird their lawyers made this so specific.
> Audio used for wake-word detection is processed locally on the TV and, if no wake word is detected, audio is not converted to text, stored, or transmitted.
Narrowly defined to be only "Audio used for wake-word detection". A lawyer can rightly argue that if they make a second copy of the audio that does not go to wake-word detection, then they can convert it to text, store, and transmit it. They can resolve this ambiguity by removing the narrowly defined "Audio used for wake-word detection" to just state that they do not convert to text, store, or transmit any audio outside of a session. Weird their lawyers made this so specific.
> Voice-recognition results and related technical logs may be generated as part of processing a voice command. These records are associated with specific voice interactions and do not indicate continuous recording of conversations occurring outside an active voice recognition session.
"These records ... do not indicate continuous recording" is not a denial that they are continuously recording. It merely states that it does not indicate continuous recording. A lawyer can rightly argue that as long as they have at least one record that is not associated with a continuous recording, then they are being truthful. No need to remove ambiguity here as it would be covered by the above fixes.
> Speech-recognition results may be used to support voice-related features but are not uploaded later when the TV is offline or when connectivity is restored.
"but are not uploaded later when the TV is offline or when connectivity is restored". Again, "or". Only mentions later, no statement about "now". Their lawyers can rightly argue that as long as they upload them immediately they are being truthful.
"uploaded later when the TV is offline" is illogical nonsense, how is it uploading when it is offline? Their lawyers can rightly argue that as long as they upload later when the TV is online and the TV never lost connectivity, then they are being truthful.
They can remove the ambiguity by stating that they never upload the speech-recognition results or only retain them until the voice-related feature has completed the task. Weird how their lawyers made this so specific.
> ACR uses audio fingerprinting technology using the TV’s internal audio processor (not a speaker) to identify content and does not collect screenshots, screen recordings, video recordings, voice recordings, or other audio recordings from the TV.
Again, "or". "uses" does not mean exclusively uses. "collect" only means ACR does not collect it. This does not indicate that screenshots, screen recordings, video recordings, voice recordings, or other audio recordings are not collected by other processes. It does not indicate that they do not use the resources collected by those other processes. They can remove the ambiguity by stating that ACR does not "use" these data sources and exclusively uses audio fingerprinting technology. Weird how their lawyers made this so specific.
Truly so odd how their lawyers make such precise, minute, and nuanced distinctions for their benefit, but leave everything else so ambiguous they can rightfully argue a tortured interpretation is technically truthful. If they were lawyers on behalf of the consumers, they would never accept such ambiguous language. Must be accidental.