If you have a dispute with Duolingo, you cannot sue them in court or join a class action lawsuit — you must resolve it through private arbitration, one-on-one.
This clause means you give up your right to a jury trial and to participate in class action lawsuits against Duolingo, forcing any dispute into a private arbitration process that most consumers find more difficult to navigate than civil court.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Binding Arbitration and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Mandatory arbitration eliminates your ability to sue Duolingo in court and prevents you from joining with other users who have the same complaint, which typically favors companies over individual consumers.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: This provision implicates the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.) which generally enforces arbitration agreements in consumer contracts. It also engages FTC Act Section 5 (15 U.S.C. §45) regarding unfair or deceptive practices, and is subject to scrutiny under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12 U.S.C. §5531) to the extent Duolingo's paid subscription products are considered consumer financial products. The CFPB has previously issued rules limiting mandatory arbitration clauses (subsequently overturned), but the FTC retains authority to challenge such clauses as unfair.
Compliance intelligence locked
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Watcher: regulatory citations. Professional: full compliance memo.