Mandatory Arbitration and Class Action Waiver

What it is

This clause means that if you have a legal dispute with Duolingo, you generally cannot sue them in court or join a class action lawsuit — instead, the dispute goes to a private arbitration process.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

Arbitration typically limits your ability to appeal decisions, reduces discovery rights, and removes the option of joining other users with similar complaints in a class action, which is often the only practical way to pursue small-value claims.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

If Duolingo harms you financially or otherwise, this clause restricts you to individual arbitration rather than court litigation or group lawsuits, which may reduce your practical remedies especially for lower-value disputes.

What you can do

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: This provision implicates the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which generally supports enforcement of arbitration agreements in the U.S. The FTC has authority over unfair or deceptive acts and practices and has increased scrutiny of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. In EU and UK jurisdictions, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are generally unenforceable under EU Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair contract terms and equivalent UK consumer rights law; this creates a material gap between the terms as written and their enforceability for non-U.S. users. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The clause is broad in its application to all disputes and includes an explicit class action waiver. While such provisions are common in U.S. consumer-facing technology platforms, the FAA's applicability and the clause's enforceability against international users is uncertain. Consumer-facing arbitration clauses have faced increasing regulatory and judicial scrutiny. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU/EEA users are unlikely to be bound by this clause under applicable consumer protection law. UK users face similar limitations post-Brexit under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. California courts have occasionally found specific arbitration provisions unenforceable under unconscionability doctrine, though this is fact-specific. The clause may require separate, jurisdiction-specific terms for international users. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: B2B procurement teams should note that this clause, as written, applies broadly to disputes arising from use of the service. Organizations deploying Duolingo for Schools or enterprise use should assess whether the standard consumer arbitration terms are appropriate for their institutional context or whether separate agreements govern. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should verify that the 30-day opt-out mechanism is disclosed clearly at account creation in a manner consistent with FTC guidance on conspicuous disclosure. Teams should also confirm that the terms apply differently (or are excluded) for EU and UK users, and that the platform's legal infrastructure supports differentiated dispute resolution frameworks by jurisdiction.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• User Content License medium
• Account Suspension and Termination medium
• Disclaimer of Warranties low
• Limitation of Liability medium
• Indemnification medium
• Age Restriction and Parental Consent high

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.