Curl Translations | The Cost of Getting It Wrong: Language, Translation, and International Business

Translation is often treated as an enabling function of international business: necessary, sometimes complex, but ultimately subordinate to the legal, financial, and commercial decisions it supports. This view underestimates the extent to which language itself can shape those decisions. A translation may sit inside a merger agreement worth billions of dollars, determine whether an insurance claim is covered, affect the interpretation of a regulatory filing, or become the focus of a marketing controversy. A single word can alter a contractual obligation, change the scope of an insurance policy, or undermine a campaign in a new market.

As companies increasingly use artificial intelligence to create and translate content at unprecedented scale, the volume of content entering international business is growing faster than the capacity for meaningful human review. This increases the likelihood that imprecise or incorrect language (regardless of how it was produced) will wind up affecting decisions or having consequences with significant legal, financial, and commercial repercussions.

These risks are not new, nor are they limited to AI-generated content, but their consequences are both real and long-lasting. As explained below, across industries and jurisdictions, seemingly minor linguistic errors have altered contractual terms, contributed to multimillion-dollar disputes, affected regulatory interpretation, and damaged brands.

Insurance: describing the risk correctly

The insurance industry relies on translations at many points across its business. An international claim may involve bills of lading, invoices, packing lists, and correspondence between the insured, insurer, broker, adjuster, and counsel. These documents often contain important information that is handwritten, poorly photocopied, or partially illegible. Translating these documents requires professionals who can first accurately decipher the source text and then translate it. An error in any one of these documents can affect how the underlying facts, and ultimately the result of the claim, are understood.

In Wise (Underwriting Agency) Ltd vs. Grupo Nacional Provincial SA, Spanish relojes was translated as “clocks” in the English presentation of a marine reinsurance risk (relojes can be both clocks and watches in Spanish). The Spanish documentation also contained specific information identifying Rolex watches and their packaging, but that information was omitted from the English version.

When Rolex watches were subsequently stolen in a loss valued at approximately $800,000, the reinsurers disputed their liability. The Court of Appeal ultimately held that the risk had not been fairly presented, illustrating how significant one word can be when it changes the information on which an insurer or reinsurer assesses a risk. [1]

Insurance and reinsurance decisions depend on accurate descriptions of the underlying risk. A translation that changes the identity or characteristics of the insured goods can affect underwriting, disclosure, and subsequent coverage disputes.

When translation becomes an intellectual property issue

In 2026, Wise Payments successfully defended its “Wise” trademark against a challenge brought before European intellectual-property authorities by another company. The opposing company relied on an earlier trademark registered in Portugal, but it did not provide the required English translation of the Portuguese trademark documentation specifying the goods and services covered by that mark. As a result, the challenge was rejected.[2]

Here, the problem was procedural rather than semantic: the relevant material had not been translated when the proceedings required it. The case illustrates a less obvious language risk: in international intellectual property proceedings, failing to meet a translation requirement can prevent a company from having its claim properly considered.

Localization and the importance of cultural context

Translation also converges with a broader issue of international communication: words acquire meaning from their cultural context.

The 2026 Starbucks “Tank Day” controversy in South Korea is a stark example. Starbucks Korea launched an ad for its “Tank” tumbler range on May 18, the anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju uprising. The combination of the date, the word “tank,” and additional campaign language evoked memories of the military suppression of the pro-democracy movement and generated public backlash. The conglomerate that owns Starbucks Korea withdrew the ad and dismissed its Korean chief executive.

The financial consequences were substantial. Starbucks Korea subsequently announced a nationwide temporary closure of more than 2,000 stores for sensitivity training. Estimated foregone revenue from the closure was approximately $1.4 million. Industry data showed weekly payment volume fell 26% in the week following the campaign.[3]

This was fundamentally a localization failure. The individual words were understandable in Korean; the historical associations attached to them and their cultural impact were inadequately assessed.

For multinational companies, this distinction is important. Translation transfers meaning between languages. Localization is the evaluation of whether that content functions appropriately within the target market’s legal, cultural, and commercial environment.

When a translation error becomes a government problem

The consequences of mistranslation can extend beyond the private sector, reaching the highest levels of government and public policy.

In 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered a case involving an error in the Romanian version of an EU state-aid regulation. The regulation established criteria for determining when a company was eligible for financial support. One provision concerned limited-liability companies that had been in existence for less than three years. In the Romanian version, this was incorrectly translated as at least three years, reversing the meaning of the provision.

The error had practical consequences. Romanian authorities awarded micro-grants to companies that appeared eligible under the erroneous Romanian wording but did not meet the corresponding criterion under the other language versions of the regulation. The authorities subsequently sought repayment of the grants, along with interest.

The case raised a fundamental question: what happens when individuals or companies rely in good faith on an official translation of EU law? The Court ultimately held that the correction to the Romanian version of the EU state-aid rules applied retroactively, but it could not be used retroactively to require repayment of aid already granted in good faith before the correction was adopted.[4]

The episode demonstrates that a translation error in a legal text does not remain a linguistic problem. When the text carries the force of law, a single mistranslated phrase can affect eligibility for public funding, trigger repayment obligations, and create uncertainty about what the law actually requires.

The $71 million word

One of the most expensive mistranslations of a single word took place not in a high-stakes merger, but rather as the result of an incorrect medical interpretation.

This frequently cited example is the case of Willie Ramirez, an 18-year-old Spanish-speaking patient who was admitted to a Florida hospital. His family used the Spanish word intoxicado to describe his condition. A bilingual staff member incorrectly interpreted it as “intoxicated,” leading medical personnel to treat him for a suspected drug overdose. Ramirez was in fact suffering from an intracerebral hemorrhage. The delay in diagnosis left him quadriplegic, and the resulting malpractice claim was reportedly settled for approximately $71 million.[5]

Bilingual employees or family members do not have the linguistic training, subject-matter expertise, or impartiality required for high-stakes situations, and apparently minor misunderstandings can have serious consequences. The use of professional interpreters and translators is not merely a matter of linguistic convenience, but rather an important safeguard against costly and potentially irreversible mistakes.

AI and the scale of the problem

Artificial intelligence makes this issue increasingly consequential. AI systems can generate and translate large quantities of text rapidly, and the output often appears to be grammatically polished. That fluency can obscure underlying vagueness in terminology, context, and factual interpretation.

For multilingual organizations, the relevant question is increasingly one of governance: what can be generated automatically, what requires human review, and what requires specialist linguistic and subject-matter expertise?

The answer will differ by context. A first draft of an internal email presents a different level of exposure from an insurance policy, regulatory filing, merger agreement, or product claim.

The business case for linguistic control

The most consequential translation problems tend to occur where language meets another system: law, insurance, regulation, intellectual property, or cultural meaning. The examples above span sectors, but they share a common characteristic. The linguistic issue appeared to be relatively small in relation to the consequences.

As AI expands the volume and speed of multilingual communication, the importance of linguistic quality control is likely to increase rather than diminish. The lesson is not that every translation requires the same level of scrutiny, but that companies need to recognize when language carries real risk. Where a word can affect a contract, an insurance claim, a regulatory obligation, an intellectual-property right, or a company’s reputation, linguistic accuracy is not a superficial concern. It is part of protecting the business itself.

[1] Wise (Underwriting Agency) Ltd & Ors v Grupo Nacional Provincial SA [2004] EWCA Civ 962, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), July 20, 2004. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/wise-underwriting-agency-ltd-793591161

[2] Law360, “Wise Payments Keeps TM Due To Rival’s Translation Error,” July 6, 2026. Available at: https://www.law360.com/articles/2497233

[3] The Guardian, “Starbucks Korea to shut all stores for a day after ‘Tank Day’ promotion backlash,” June 16, 2026. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/16/starbucks-korea-shut-all-stores-tank-day-promotion

[4] Court of Justice of the European Union, On Air Media Professionals SRL and Different Media SRL, Joined Cases C-416/24 and C-417/24, October 9, 2025. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62024CJ0416

[5] American Translators Association, “The Seventy-One-Million-Dollar Word.” Available at: https://www.atanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/resource_yurick.pdf

 

by Pamela Boyle, Managing Director, CURL TRANSLATIONS

 

 

Compliments of Curl Translations – a member of the EACCNY