any indemnification agreement that, without statutory authorization, imposes on the United States an open-ended, potentially unrestricted liability." The Attorney General says federal agencies "should renegotiate the terms of service to revise or eliminate the indemnification clause or cancel the [government]'s enrollments in social media applications when their operators insist on such a clause." State variations Under US law, interpretation of indemnification clauses varies by state. For example, in California indemnification clauses do not cover certain risks unless the risks are listed in the contract, but in New York, the brief clause, "X shall defend and indemnify Y for all claims arising from the Product" makes X responsible for all claims against Y. Indemnity can be extremely costly since X's liability insurance typically does not cover claims against Y, but X still has to cover them. In 2017, the Utah Supreme Court stated, "By statute, a contractual provision requiring a purchaser of a product to indemnify a manufacturer is 'void and unenforceable' in certain circumstances. UTAH CODE § 78B-6-707." In 2012–2014, a New Jersey woman had to pay a lawyer to get out of an indemnity payment for injury at a storage unit. When someone slipped on ice in 2012 while going to a unit, Public Storage sued in court to make the woman who rented the unit pay for the injury. She tried to ignore the case and so state court ruled that she had to pay. She then retained a lawyer and went to court. In 2014, the US District Court decided that the specific indemnity clause was unenforceable in New Jersey because it covered Public Storage's own negligence without explicitly saying so, contrary to New Jersey law (other states differ). A 2013 decision in New Jersey upheld a broad indemnity clause since it was followed by another sentence: "indemnity agreement is intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of New Jersey." The judge said, "It is true that a consumer, unfamiliar with the laws of New Jersey, would not be able to state with certainty how far the waiver extends." In 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court required a flower shop to indemnify its shopping center for a customer who slipped on the icy parking lot, though of no fault of the flower shop, because the tenant was there to visit that shop, and the shop's lease had a broad