What is the PRIMARY risk associated with failing to clearly define exclusivity clauses in a brand deal contract?

The PRIMARY risk associated with failing to clearly define exclusivity clauses in a brand deal contract is the potential for legal disputes and financial liabilities arising from a breach of contract. Exclusivity clauses restrict the streamer from promoting or partnering with competing brands within a specific timeframe and scope. If these clauses are vaguely worded or ambiguous, it becomes difficult to determine what constitutes a violation. For instance, if an exclusivity clause prohibits the streamer from promoting 'similar products', the definition of 'similar' may be open to interpretation, leading to disagreements about whether a new partnership violates the agreement. This ambiguity can result in the brand suing the streamer for breach of contract, claiming damages for lost revenue or reputational harm. Conversely, the streamer may unknowingly violate the clause, leading to legal action and financial penalties. A clearly defined exclusivity clause specifies the exact brands or product categories the streamer is prohibited from working with, the geographical limitations, and the duration of the restriction, minimizing the risk of misunderstandings and legal conflicts. The absence of clear exclusivity terms can damage the relationship between the streamer and the brand, even without formal legal action, as it creates uncertainty and mistrust.