Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay mo

Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than "paying [read: suffering] the consequences." Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you constructed: > websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use words misleadingly.