In IT outsourcing, yes. See this article from CIO magazine.[1] Key items:
"An indemnification clause is an important provision in which the service provider agrees to indemnify the customer company for any breaches of its warranties. Indemnification means that the provider will have to pay the customer for any third-party litigation costs resulting from its breach of the warranties. If you use a standard SLA provided by the service provider, it is likely this provision will be absent; ask your in-house counsel to draft a simple provision to include it, although the service provider may want further negotiation of this point."
In other words, many vendors like to find suckers who will sign their standard one-sided agreement, but there's usually room for negotiation.
Relying on a tool that offers no SLA is sketchy, especially if it’s going to offer an important component. If Jira goes down, not a big deal. But if part of my application breaks because of a third party tool I’m paying for to be up and functional, I’m gonna be mad.
It might be far less than ideal, but I was under the impression that's pretty standard. Unless you pay for an enterprise plan (and possibly extra on top of that depending on your SLA requirements) at best you'll get a billing credit for the downtime.
> "SECURITY, RELIABILITY, QUALITY, ACCURACY" is not guaranteed.
Not something you want for a paid IaaS that deals with OAuth. I hope this is boilerplate that someone copypasta'd