Can You Get Out of a ZoomInfo Contract? Only Before Day 60

Here's the trap. You signed a ZoomInfo contract in March, you have been unhappy since about August, and you plan to raise it at the renewal conversation in February. There is no renewal conversation in February. The decision was due at the end of December and nothing on your calendar said so.

The direct answer: you can get out of a ZoomInfo contract only by giving written notice on or before the Extension Date, and for every contract signed under ZoomInfo's published terms between October 2019 and March 2024 that date was 60 days before the last day of the term. Miss it and the agreement extends itself for the length of your initial term or one year, whichever is longer, at your annualised fee plus 10% plus any discount you had negotiated. Mid-term cancellation is not available at all. ZoomInfo's own terms say so in five words: "The Agreement is not cancellable."

It works the way a mortgage break fee works. The date on which the price stops being negotiable matters more than the price, and it is buried in a document you signed once and have not opened since. We read nine vendors on the data and research shelf for this page. Three publish a notice window a buyer can find before signing.

This page does not sell, resell or broker any tool on it. Every clause below is quoted from a published page with the date it was read. Every financial figure is quoted from an SEC filing with its accession number. Nothing here is a measurement, and nothing here is legal advice: this page describes published contract terms and public court records, and your own signed order form is the document that governs you.

What follows: the verbatim clause, the arithmetic of what a missed date costs, the seven-version diff showing ZoomInfo deleted that clause on 1 May 2025, nine figures from the 10-K and 10-Q, the notice windows nine competing vendors publish, the live dockets, what the Eighth Circuit did to the federal click-to-cancel rule before it took effect, and a 20-minute audit you can run on your own order form today.

So can you get out of a ZoomInfo contract?

Three answers, depending on where you are standing. Inside the notice window, yes, by written notice, and nothing else counts. Outside it, no, and you owe the extension term. Mid-term, no, at any price, unless ZoomInfo has materially breached and failed to cure inside 21 days.

That last route is real but narrow. Section 3.2 of the current terms, read at zoominfo.com/legal/ltc on 25 August 2026, lets either party terminate immediately for "a material breach of this Agreement by the other party that is not remedied within twenty-one (21) days after the breaching party's receipt of written notice of such breach." The same document names two candidate breaches on ZoomInfo's side that most buyers never read: a data-accuracy commitment and an uptime commitment, each carrying termination plus a pro-rata refund of prepaid fees.

Everything else is the calendar. And the calendar is the part ZoomInfo used to publish and now does not.

What an "Extension Date" actually is

An Extension Date is a single day, computed backwards from the end of your term, after which your decision to leave stops being available. It is not a grace period and it is not the renewal date. It sits two months earlier, and the day after it passes you are committed to another full term whether or not anyone has spoken to you.

The word matters because it is not "renewal" and it is not "cancellation", which are the two words a buyer searches the PDF for. ZoomInfo's clause was headed "Automatic Extension of the Term". A finance lead scanning an order form for the word "renew" will scroll straight past it.

The second term to hold precisely is Ordering Document: the signed page carrying your term length, seat count and price, as against the License Terms and Conditions, which are the general rules. Section 13.6 states that where the two conflict, "these Terms shall prevail unless the Ordering Document expressly provides that it is modifying these Terms." Your order form can therefore change the window, so you cannot know your notice period without reading it.

The clause ZoomInfo published for five and a half years

Here it is, quoted verbatim from Section 3.2 of the version dated 6 March 2024, read at zoominfo.com/legal/ltc_03_06_2024 on 25 August 2026:

Read the middle clause twice, because it is the part nobody quotes. The extension runs for the length of the Initial Term or one year, whichever is longer. On a one-year deal, missing the date costs a year. On a three-year deal, the same single missed date costs three.

That asymmetry is not theoretical. ZoomInfo's FY2025 Form 10-K, filed 12 February 2026 under accession 0001794515-26-000012, states that subscriptions "generally range from one to three years in length" and that "About 53% of customer contracts (based on annualized value) are multi-year agreements." More than half the money on ZoomInfo's book sits on contracts where one missed date extends by more than twelve months.

The same filing describes the contracts in the same breath as the revenue policy: "Our subscription contracts typically have a term ranging from one to three years and are non-cancelable." That is a filing, not a marketing page, which is why it is the most reliable sentence about ZoomInfo contract shape in public.

What the extension costs: plus 10%, plus your discount back

The fee formula sat in the same clause, and it is the reason the date is worth more than the negotiation. Verbatim, same document:

"Plus any applied discount" is the phrase to sit with. The discount you negotiated in year one is not a new price. Under this clause it is a temporary suspension of the old price, and the extension puts it back.

Worked through on a round number, and this is arithmetic over the clause's own stated terms rather than anything measured from an invoice. Take a buyer who negotiated 20% off a $56,250 list to land at $45,000 a year. The extension fee is the annualised $45,000, plus 10% of it, plus the $11,250 that was discounted away.

Modelled from the clause's stated formula, not measured from any invoice. The $45,000 anchor is a round number chosen for legibility, not a ZoomInfo price: ZoomInfo publishes no price at all, which is why what buyers actually paid is a separate question with separate evidence. The 35% row assumes a $69,231 list discounted to $45,000, and the discount restored is $24,231. Every row is the clause applied, and every row is why a diary entry is worth more than a procurement consultant.

Section 3.2 also closes the obvious escape. Fees for the extension "shall be due upon extension of the Term and shall be payable as invoiced." The money is owed the day the window closes, not the day the new term starts.

ZoomInfo deleted the clause. That is not good news.

ZoomInfo keeps its old terms online. Seven dated versions of the License Terms and Conditions sit at stable URLs, listed in the company's own legal sitemap at zoominfo.com/cws/sitemaps/legal.xml. We fetched all seven on 25 August 2026 and diffed Section 3.

Five consecutive published versions across five and a half years carry the clause word for word. The sixth does not. The live page at /legal/ltc is byte-identical in Section 3 to the May 1 2025 version and still stamps itself "Version: May 1, 2025", so as of 25 August 2026 the auto-extension clause has been absent from ZoomInfo's published terms for fifteen months.

Why deletion is worse than disclosure

The extension did not go away. Section 3.1 still defines the Term as the Initial Term "together with any period of extension", and no other section says what that extension is, when it triggers, how long it runs or what it costs. The mechanic is referenced and no longer readable by anyone who has not already signed.

Where it went is the Ordering Document, which ZoomInfo does not publish, which means the notice window is now a fact you can only learn after you are inside the contract. Between March 2024 and May 2025 a prospective buyer could read ZoomInfo's exit terms before a sales call. Today they cannot. This is the single most consequential change to a published contract in this directory and no ranking page for the query mentions it.

We are not alleging anything by saying so. There are ordinary commercial reasons to move a term into the order form, and ZoomInfo has not been asked to explain it here. What is checkable is the diff, and the diff is that the buyer-facing disclosure is gone.

How to run the diff yourself, in four minutes

• Fetch the legal sitemap. curl -s https://www.zoominfo.com/cws/sitemaps/legal.xml returns 45 URLs including every archived ltc_* version. No account needed.
• Fetch the version dated closest to your signature date and the live /legal/ltc. Both return HTTP 200 to an ordinary browser user agent.
• Search both for the string "Extension Date". Present means a 60-day window and the uplift formula apply to that vintage of terms. Absent means the mechanic lives in your Ordering Document instead.
• Then open your Ordering Document anyway. Section 13.6 lets it override, and the archived terms tell you what the default looked like, not what you signed.

What the 10-K says your contract looks like

ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. trades as ZI and files under CIK 0001794515. Public filers have to describe their contracts to investors in ways they never describe them to buyers, and the disclosure is more precise than anything on the sales site.

Two rows carry the weight. Remaining performance obligations is contracted revenue not yet recognised, and at 31 December 2025 it stood at $1,252.4m, of which $365.0m was noncurrent. The 10-K states that "The majority of the Company's noncurrent remaining performance obligations will be recognized in the next 13 to 36 months." That noncurrent balance is, in plain terms, the money customers have already committed for periods beyond the next twelve months. It grew 19% year on year from $306.8m to $365.0m.

Net revenue retention is the other. ZoomInfo defines it as total ACV for a starting cohort at the end of a twelve-month period divided by that cohort's ACV at the start. The rate was 87% at end-2024, 90% at end-2025, and 89% at 30 June 2026 and 30 June 2025 alike. Every one of those readings is below 100%, which means the installed base shrinks in dollars each year net of expansion. The 90% reading is an improvement, not a decline, and the 10-Q reports the June figure as flat year on year rather than falling.

A vendor whose cohort loses roughly a tenth of its dollars a year has a structural interest in the extension mechanic doing work the sales conversation does not. That is an incentive, not an accusation, and the clause reads the same either way.

What does the average ZoomInfo customer actually pay?

ZoomInfo publishes no price. It does publish two numbers that bound one, and the answer is not the number circulating on comparison pages.

From the FY2025 10-K: 1,921 customers held $100,000 or greater in ACV, and "Customers with $100,000 or greater in ACV comprised over 50% of total Company ACV as of December 31, 2025." Total customers were "over 35,000." Revenue for the year was $1,249.5m.

Using FY2025 revenue as a stand-in for total ACV, which is an approximation the filing does not endorse because ACV is a point-in-time annualised figure and revenue is recognised ratably, the arithmetic runs like this. The large-account cohort holds more than $624.75m across 1,921 customers, so its average exceeds $325,000. The remaining 33,079-plus customers share less than $624.75m, so their average is under $18,887.

Computed from published figures, not measured, and because "over 35,000" is a floor rather than a count, both of those averages are ceilings rather than point estimates. The useful consequence: if you are a ten-seat buyer being shown a five-figure quote and a comparison page told you the median contract is $45,000, that page described the top 5.5% of ZoomInfo's customer list. Your renewal is not being negotiated against the same benchmark theirs is.

Your renewal in late 2026 is not a renewal of the same product

This is the single most time-sensitive thing in the Q2 2026 10-Q and it is one sentence long. Quoted verbatim from accession 0001794515-26-000056, filed 5 August 2026:

"As they renew" is the operative clause. The renewal is the conversion event. A buyer who lets the Extension Date pass on autopilot is not extending the deal they have; they are being moved onto a platform-fee-plus-credits structure whose unit economics they have not priced, at a fee formula they did not negotiate.

A credit is not a unit. Mobile numbers cost between one and ten credits depending on the vendor, and that ratio decides your real cost per contact. If your renewal converts you to credits, the number to establish before the Extension Date is what a credit buys, in records, for your data mix. The 10-Q does not say.

The same paragraph concedes the risk in ZoomInfo's own words: the transition "may result in revenue headwinds and increased period-to-period variability." Vendor-reported, and reported to the SEC rather than to buyers, which is the version worth reading.

Which data vendors publish a notice window, and which do not

The comparison nobody runs. We fetched the published customer-facing terms of nine data, enrichment and dialer vendors on 25 August 2026 and read the term-and-renewal clause off each one. Two facts fall out immediately: the stated windows run from three business days to sixty, and three vendors publish no window at all.

The three "not stated publicly" rows are the finding, not the gap. RocketReach's published Terms of Service contains the word "Term" 61 times and the word "renew" zero times; it defers to a separate "Subscription Agreement" that is not linked from the page. Cognism's public terms page is a website terms of use governing browsing, not a customer agreement. Neither of those is improper. Both mean a prospective buyer cannot know the exit terms before signing.

The spread on the numbers that do exist is the practical takeaway. Salesfinity's 3 business days and ZoomInfo's historical 60 days are a factor of twenty apart, and Apollo and LeadIQ both land on 30. A 60-day window on an annual term means there are 305 days a year on which leaving is not an option available to you. On a three-year term with the same window, there are 1,035.

The reverse reading: what a short window tells you about the product

Salesfinity markets itself on flexibility and publishes three business days. That is genuinely short, and the second half of the same clause is that all payments are final. Both halves are true and only one is on the marketing page, which is the pattern this site has documented across the directory in the tools that bill monthly rather than annually.

Does any law give you the window back?

Probably not, and the federal answer got weaker in 2025 rather than stronger. This is where a buyer's instinct that "they can't do that" meets what the statute books say about business-to-business contracts.

The FTC's click-to-cancel rule was vacated before it took effect

On 15 November 2024 the FTC published a final rule at 89 FR 90476 retitling and rewriting its Negative Option Rule. Among other things it "required sellers to provide consumers with simple cancellation mechanisms to immediately halt all recurring charges." Industry petitions were consolidated in the Eighth Circuit, which held the Commission's failure to issue a preliminary regulatory analysis "procedurally insufficient" and vacated the rule. Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, 142 F.4th 1060 (8th Cir. 2025), decided 8 July 2025.

The FTC then formally conformed the books. Its final rule at 91 FR 6507, effective 12 February 2026, recodified the Negative Option Rule "as it existed before the effective date of the Commission's 2024 final rule amending it," including "changing the full name of the rule back to 'Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans.'" A fresh proposed rule followed at 91 FR 12318 on 13 March 2026, which as of today is a proposal and not law.

So the click-to-cancel regime that a great many 2025-vintage articles describe as current law does not exist. Any page telling you the FTC now requires an easy cancellation path is describing a rule a federal appeals court struck down. And even in its 2024 form it was aimed at consumers, not at a company buying a $45,000 sales database.

New York has a business-to-business auto-renewal statute. It may not reach SaaS.

The best-known B2B provision is New York General Obligations Law § 5-903. It makes an automatic renewal clause unenforceable against the customer unless the supplier, "at least fifteen days and not more than thirty days previous to the time specified for serving such notice upon him, shall give to the person receiving the service, maintenance or repair written notice, served personally or by certified mail, calling the attention of that person to the existence of such provision in the contract."

In effect: if the statute applies, the vendor must remind you that your window is coming, in writing, by certified mail, in a 15-to-30-day slot before your notice deadline. It does not apply to automatic renewal periods of one month or less.

The catch is the phrase "service, maintenance or repair to or for any real or personal property." Whether a hosted subscription qualifies is contested, and New York's courts have worked the question in a line running from Healthcare I.Q., LLC v. Tsai Chung Chao (App. Div., 2014) through Vitac Corp. v. Thomson Reuters (Marketing) LLC (2019) to Serhant LLC v. Federico (2025 and again 2026). CourtListener returns 31 opinions citing the section. How it comes out on your contract turns on your facts and your governing-law clause.

And ZoomInfo's governing-law clause is not New York's by default. Section 13.11 of the current terms points to a contracting-entity schedule rather than naming one forum in the body. Read yours before you invest an hour in § 5-903.

The enforcement gap, from someone who tried

Statutes on the books and statutes enforced are different objects, and the practitioner record says so. On Hacker News item 24822933, posted 19 October 2020 at 6 points and 6 comments, user adrr wrote:

That is one person's experience on a public thread, not a measurement of enforcement rates, and it concerns data-broker registration rather than contract renewals. It earns its place because it names the failure mode that applies to every statute in this section: a right you have to litigate to exercise is a cost, not a remedy. Budget accordingly before you build a plan on § 5-903.

The consumer statutes that will not help you

A commenter on Hacker News item 34616003 raised the obvious candidate: "If this is happening to you in California - look into California's Amended Automatic Renewal Law that took effect on July 1, 2022." That is one person's suggestion on a public thread, not a legal finding, and it is worth including because it is the first thing most buyers reach for. California's ARL is written around consumers, and a company buying sales software is generally not one.

What actually happens in month ten, from people who were there

Vendors publish the rate. Only buyers publish the surprise. The practitioner record on this specific mechanic is thin but it is not empty, and the thinness is itself worth knowing about.

Hacker News item 34616003, "Tell HN: Zoominfo Renewal Clause", posted 1 February 2023 by user quickand1, 5 points and 2 comments. It is a small thread and the poster is summarising a short-seller newsletter, both of which need saying up front. The post states:

That is one person's characterisation, not a finding of fact. What makes it worth quoting is that the 60-day figure in it is independently confirmable, and we confirmed it: the same number appears verbatim in ZoomInfo's own published terms for every version from October 2019 to March 2024. A practitioner claim and a vendor document that agree is publishable as attributed fact, and this is one.

The same post relays that The Bear Cave, a short-seller newsletter, obtained consumer complaints by Freedom of Information Act request and reported that ZoomInfo "has admitted to the Washington State Attorney General of sometimes doing renewals 'in error.'" We could not obtain the FOIA production or the Attorney General correspondence, and a short seller holds a financial position in the story. Treat that as an unverified secondary claim with no primary source we could reach. It is here because the 60-day half of the same post checked out, and because your procurement team will find the thread in ten minutes.

The practitioner corpus on this topic is genuinely thin, and that is a finding

Public practitioner discussion of ZoomInfo contracts barely exists. Hacker News carries 18 ZoomInfo stories in total; the highest-scoring, item 46050471 at 123 points, is about pre-consent tracking on ZoomInfo's own landing page, not about contracts. Item 24822933 from October 2020 (6 points, 6 comments) asks how the business model is legal at all. The one renewal thread scores 5.

Reddit is where this argument actually happens, and this page does not quote threads it has not read in full. What it can report is the size of the rooms on 2026-08-23: r/sales holds 387,191 subscribers and r/salesdevelopment holds 6,396, so the subreddit named after the job is 1.65% the size of the one named after the function.

A contract mechanic worth six figures to a mid-market buyer generates five points on the one public thread that names it. Nobody is checking. That is the market this page exists in.

What ZoomInfo does when a customer does not pay

The published terms and the public docket answer this together, and they agree.

Section 3.3.2 of the current terms: if ZoomInfo terminates for an uncured material breach by the licensee, "all Subscription Fees payable to be paid to ZoomInfo for the remainder of the then-current Term shall be immediately due and payable." That is an acceleration clause. Stopping payment mid-term does not reduce the exposure, it crystallises it.

Section 4.2 gives ZoomInfo the intermediate step: on late payment it may "restrict or suspend Licensee's access to the Licensed Materials until all past-due payments are made" or terminate. Suspension does not pause the clock either; Section 2.7 states that a suspension "shall have no effect on the Term of this Agreement nor on Licensee's obligation to pay the Subscription Fee."

On the docket side, CourtListener's RECAP index returns 29 dockets with ZoomInfo in the case name. ZoomInfo is the plaintiff in most of them, and the causes are instructive: breach of contract against Softchoice Corporation (8:20-cv-03450, D. Md., 2020-11-25) and against Salutary Data LLC (1:21-cv-10396, D. Mass., 2021-03-08), plus trade-secret and copyright actions against By Appointment Only, CarpeDatum, Global Convergence, Valasys Media and Tkxel. The one filed against ZoomInfo on a contract theory is Carroll v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc., 2:23-cv-02020 (D.S.C., filed 2023-05-12, nature of suit "190 Contract: Other", cause "28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract"). It has no termination date on the docket.

Every one of those is a filed case, and a filed case is an allegation. We are not reporting that anyone breached anything. What the docket establishes is only that this vendor litigates contract disputes rather than writing them off, which is exactly the fact a buyer weighing "what if we just stop paying" needs.

The rest of the litigation, and what it is not

ZoomInfo's Q2 2026 10-Q discloses five categories of pending litigation, none of them about renewals, and all of them findable by a procurement or security reviewer. The last two rows below are not in the filing; we found them on the docket. Listed so you are not surprised, and labelled so you do not overstate them.

Every row above is an allegation in a pending or closed proceeding, not a finding against anyone. Docket data read from CourtListener's REST v4 search index on 25 August 2026; the 10-Q descriptions are ZoomInfo's own. A terminated docket is not an adjudication of the merits, and we have not read the dispositions. Re-check the posture before you quote any of this to your own legal team.

None of it gives you an exit. Litigation over how a data broker sources profiles has no bearing on whether your subscription auto-extends. Know the list because your security reviewer will ask, and "pending putative class actions on publicity and state consumer-protection theories, all defended" is a better answer than being surprised.

The 20-minute contract-shape audit

This is the procedure. It needs no trial, no vendor conversation and no budget, it takes about twenty minutes, and it has a pass/fail threshold at each step. Run it on your ZoomInfo order form, then run it on every other annual contract you own.

• Find the Ordering Document, not the website terms (3 minutes). Search your email and your contract repository for the signed PDF. Fail condition: you cannot find it. If nobody in the company can produce the signed order form, you do not know your notice window and that is the finding.
• Search it for four strings, in this order: "Extension", "Term", "notice", "renew" (2 minutes). "Extension" first, because that is the heading ZoomInfo used and the word most buyers do not search for. Pass: you can state your window in days and cite the section.
• Compute the Extension Date and write it down (1 minute). Last day of term, minus the window in days. Fail condition: that date is already in the past. If it is, you owe the extension term and the section below on what remains negotiable is the one to read.
• Fetch the archived ZoomInfo terms nearest your signature date (4 minutes). From zoominfo.com/cws/sitemaps/legal.xml. Compare its Section 3.2 to your order form. Pass: they agree, or the order form expressly overrides. Escalate: they disagree and the order form is silent, because Section 13.6 then makes the general terms control.
• Find the uplift formula (2 minutes). Search for "10%", "applied discount" and "annualized". Fail condition: no formula anywhere, in which case the extension price is whatever ZoomInfo invoices and you should ask for it in writing before the Extension Date, not after.
• Read Section 3 for the accuracy and uptime commitments (3 minutes). These are the only mid-term exits that exist. Note the cure period and the notice requirement. Pass: you can name the two remedies and the number of days on each.
• Set two calendar reminders (2 minutes). One 30 days before the Extension Date, one on it. The first is when you decide. The second is when you send. Fail condition: a single reminder. Deciding and sending on the same day is how windows get missed.
• Send a test data export today (3 minutes). Export a list from the platform and confirm the format and the row count. Fail condition: you cannot export, or the export drops fields. What you can extract in a renewal is proportional to how cheaply you could leave, and an unexportable dataset is a switching cost you are paying interest on.

What this audit cannot detect

Three things, and pretending otherwise would be the failure the audit exists to prevent. It cannot tell you the discount you would actually be offered, because published terms are an opening position. It cannot tell you whether ZoomInfo accepts email when the contract says written notice, because practice is not published. And it cannot tell you what a successor tool costs until you have priced one, which is the step most buyers leave until after the window has shut.

What to do this week

Four moves, in this order, and the first one takes ten minutes.

• Compute your Extension Date today and put it in the shared calendar, not your own. A date that lives in one person's Outlook leaves the company when they do. This is the cheapest item on the page and the only one that has to happen before you need it.
• Send written notice of non-renewal as soon as the window opens, even if you intend to stay. Notice of non-renewal is reversible by agreement; a lapsed window is not. It converts a deadline you might miss into a conversation you control, and it moves the renewal from the vendor's calendar to yours. Check your own clause first, because a minority of agreements treat notice as irrevocable.
• Price a replacement with published rates before you open the renewal conversation. Not a vibe, a number. Of the vendors in the table above, Apollo, Clay and LeadIQ all publish enough to build one. Our read of Apollo, Clay and ZoomInfo as three different product shapes covers what each actually replaces, and the cost per verified contact gives you the per-record arithmetic to put next to a five-figure annual.
• Ask for the extension fee in writing, in dollars, before the Extension Date. If the answer is "we'll work that out at renewal," you are being asked to accept an unpriced obligation. That request is also the cheapest possible test of how the account will be handled.

If the date has already passed, you probably owe the term and nothing on this page changes that. What remains negotiable is what the term buys: seats, credit allocation under the new hybrid model, added modules, or next year's rate locked now while you still hold twelve months of negotiating room. Vendors would rather give value than refund money, and a customer who is going to pay anyway can ask for something.

If none of this describes you, here is the page you want

Some readers landed here from a query this page will not answer, and it is cheaper to say so than to let you read another 800 words.

If you are trying to get your own name and mobile number out of the ZoomInfo database rather than out of a contract, this is the wrong page. That is the opt-out process, it is unrelated to any subscription, and Hacker News item 47101234 from 21 February 2026 is one person's annual reminder to do it.

If you are still choosing rather than leaving, the comparison you want is product shape and not exit terms. If you have not signed anything yet and the real question is whether to accept an annual commitment at all, the monthly-billing census is the more useful page, and the answer there is that the choice is narrower than the market implies.

What this page does not know

One gap matters more than the rest and it is the gap ZoomInfo created in May 2025. We can tell you what the published terms said for five and a half years because those documents are still online. We cannot tell you what a 2026 Ordering Document says, because ZoomInfo does not publish one and we hold none.

The section below the FAQ names what would settle it and what to do instead. Short version: your own order form is the only sample that governs you.

So, can you get out of a ZoomInfo contract?

Yes, on one day a year, in writing, and only if you know which day it is.

For contracts signed under ZoomInfo's published terms from October 2019 through March 2024, that day is 60 days before the last day of your term, the extension runs for the longer of your initial term or one year, and it prices at your annualised fee plus 10% plus the discount you thought you had won. For contracts signed since 1 May 2025 the mechanic is still referenced in Section 3.1 and defined nowhere you can read, which means the only place your answer exists is the order form in your own filing system.

None of that is unusual for enterprise software and none of it is improper. What is unusual is the combination: no published price, a term the filings describe as running one to three years and non-cancelable, 53% of contract value on multi-year deals, a fee formula that restores your discount, a pricing model converting to credits at renewal from this quarter, and a notice window the vendor published for five and a half years and then stopped publishing.

The lever that moves every one of those is the same lever, and it is not a negotiation tactic. It is a date. Compute it, write it somewhere the company can see, and send the notice while it is still your decision to make.