Mandatory Individual Arbitration and Class Action Waiver

What it is

If you have a dispute with 23andMe, you are required to resolve it through individual arbitration rather than by filing a lawsuit in court or joining a class action claim.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

This provision removes the ability to participate in a class action lawsuit or demand a jury trial, which are typical mechanisms for consumers to collectively challenge widespread company practices or recover losses that individually may be too small to litigate alone.

This document changed recently

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

Users who accept these terms waive their right to sue 23andMe in court individually or as part of a class, and must instead submit disputes to a private arbitration process administered by JAMS on an individual basis.

What you can do

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are subject to scrutiny under the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued rules in related consumer contexts, though direct applicability here depends on whether 23andMe's services qualify as consumer financial products. California courts have invalidated arbitration clauses in consumer contracts that are found to be procedurally or substantively unconscionable under California Civil Code. Class action waivers in consumer contracts are subject to ongoing judicial and legislative scrutiny at the state level. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The combination of mandatory individual arbitration and class action waiver creates significant governance exposure because it structurally limits the ability of consumers to pursue collective redress for systemic issues such as data breaches, systematic reporting errors, or widespread service failures. The provision is common in consumer technology agreements but carries heightened sensitivity given the nature of genetic data involved. JURISDICTION FLAGS: California residents face the most active legal environment for challenging such clauses, as California courts have applied unconscionability doctrine to arbitration provisions in consumer contracts involving sensitive personal data. The provision states it applies to US users; EU and UK users are directed to separate regional terms. Illinois users should note that genetic data disputes may also implicate the Genetic Information Privacy Act. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: B2B purchasers or research partners using 23andMe services should confirm whether this arbitration clause applies to their commercial agreements or whether separate commercial terms govern. The provision states that these Terms control in the event of conflict with additional service terms, which affects how disputes under Membership or Telehealth Terms are resolved. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should audit whether the arbitration opt-out mechanism is prominently disclosed and whether the 30-day window is operationally implemented. Any future class action or regulatory proceeding involving genetic data privacy would be affected by the enforceability of this clause in the relevant jurisdiction. Legal teams should monitor California legislative developments regarding arbitration in genetic data contexts.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Limitation of Liability high
• Terms Modification with Continued Use as Acceptance medium
• Sample Processing Failure and Refund Protocol medium
• Prohibition on Insurance Company and Employer Use medium
• Services Not Intended for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment Decisions medium
• Age Restriction and Minimum Age Requirement medium

Related Analysis

• Coinbase Requires Mandatory Arbitration. You Have 30 Days to Opt Out.

  Coinbase's User Agreement includes a mandatory arbitration clause that most users may not have reviewed. Here is what the clause states and how the opt-out process works.