Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
The terms assert that Asana's total financial liability to any user, across all claims and claim types, is capped at $100, with a carve-out acknowledging that certain jurisdictions may not permit this limitation.
This analysis describes what Asana's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision establishes a $100 ceiling on Asana's aggregate financial exposure to individual users regardless of the nature, cause, or magnitude of a claim, subject to applicable law in jurisdictions that restrict such limitations.
Interpretive note: Enforceability depends on applicable jurisdiction and whether the user is classified as a consumer or business user under local law.
Under this clause, the maximum financial recovery a user may seek from Asana under these terms is $100, regardless of the type or extent of harm alleged. Applicable law in certain jurisdictions may limit the enforceability of this cap, particularly where consumer protection statutes prohibit such broad liability exclusions.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Aggregate Liability Cap of $100 and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Asana has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"IN ANY EVENT, OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY WILL NOT EXCEED $100. Some countries and U.S. jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the limitation or exclusion of liability for incidental or consequential damages such as above in this section 9. Accordingly, some of the above limitations may not apply to you.Excerpt from Asana's Terms of Service
1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability limitation clauses of this type are evaluated under the FTC Act for unfair or deceptive practices, and under EU Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair contract terms for consumer agreements. California consumer protection statutes may also constrain enforceability. The document itself acknowledges jurisdictional carve-outs but does not specify the mechanism by which higher-protection frameworks apply. 2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. A $100 aggregate cap is at the lower end of SaaS liability limitation practice and may face enforceability challenges in consumer-facing contexts, particularly in EU member states where unfair contract terms directives apply, or in California under consumer protection doctrine. Enterprise procurement teams should assess whether this cap is acceptable relative to the operational risk of the deployed service. 3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU/EEA users benefit from Directive 93/13/EEC protections that may render this clause unenforceable as an unfair term in consumer contracts. California residents may have additional statutory protections. The document acknowledges these limitations without specifying which jurisdictions are affected. 4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise customers contracting under a separate Customer Agreement may have different liability terms negotiated at the subscriber level. Procurement teams should verify whether the Customer Agreement modifies this cap for business accounts. This clause as written applies to individual users operating under these User Terms. 5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether the $100 cap, as applied to employee Managed Users, creates residual organizational liability exposure if Asana's limitation is found unenforceable. Organizations in regulated industries should confirm whether the Customer Agreement provides materially different liability allocations.
Full institutional analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Monitor: same-day alerts on the platforms you choose. Analyst: full institutional analysis.
Compliance Governance Intelligence
Need to monitor specific governance provisions?
Compliance includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.
Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.
This provision establishes a $100 ceiling on Asana's aggregate financial exposure to individual users regardless of the nature, cause, or magnitude of a claim, subject to applicable law in jurisdictions that restrict such limitations.
Under this clause, the maximum financial recovery a user may seek from Asana under these terms is $100, regardless of the type or extent of harm alleged. Applicable law in certain jurisdictions may limit the enforceability of this cap, particularly where consumer protection statutes prohibit such broad liability exclusions.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Asana.