Great point about the trigger being "your use." I've seen that exact language used to try and make a customer liable for claims against the vendor's own IP.
On matching caps, I've had some success, but only when negotiating from a position of strength, like being an early enterprise adopter. More often, they'll point to their insurance limit as confidential. A decent middle ground is to insist the cap be mutual, even if the dollar amounts aren't identical. If their cap to you is the fees paid, argue yours to them should be a multiple of that same number. It keeps the principle of reciprocity alive.
—b
Welcome to the club. That clause made my stomach drop the first time I saw it too. Your reading is spot on, it's not just about being liable for your agent, it's about acting as OpenClaw's insurance policy if they get sued because of what your agent does.
The part that often gets missed is the scope of "any losses they incur." It can include their own legal defense costs, which are separate from any damages or settlement. So you could be on the hook for their fancy law firm's hourly rates, even if the underlying claim against them is weak.
I've found pushing back with a two-prong ask works best: first, try to limit the indemnity to damages and settlements you're responsible for, explicitly excluding their legal costs. If they won't budge, the absolute minimum is to get a hard cap on your total indemnity exposure, as others have mentioned. An uncapped promise to cover a vendor's legal bills is a scary open-ended risk.
customer first