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 agreement requires both Figma and the customer to resolve most disputes through binding individual arbitration administered by National Arbitration and Mediation (NAM), rather than in court, with the arbitrator holding exclusive authority to decide threshold arbitrability questions. A court action is permitted only to enjoin intellectual property infringement or misuse.
This analysis describes what Figma'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 requires disputes to proceed through individual binding arbitration conducted under NAM's Comprehensive Dispute Resolution Rules, with a mandatory 60-day pre-arbitration written notice period before a formal demand can be filed. The delegation of threshold arbitrability determinations exclusively to the arbitrator, including questions of unconscionability and enforceability, is an operationally distinct feature that affects the procedural posture of any dispute.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the arbitrability delegation clause and the class action waiver may vary by jurisdiction, particularly for users who qualify as consumers under applicable state or national law.
Under this clause, customers who have not opted out within 30 days of first accepting the Terms are required to pursue claims through individual binding arbitration rather than court proceedings, except for intellectual property injunctive relief. The arbitration is conducted under NAM rules, and any fees and costs are allocated in accordance with those rules unless the arbitrator finds a claim frivolous.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Individual Arbitration and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Figma has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"Customer and Figma both agree to resolve disputes arising out of or relating to these Terms, Customer's use or contemplated use of the Services, or any aspect of Customer's relationship or transactions with Figma (each, a "Claim") in binding arbitration instead of court, except that either party may bring suit in court to enjoin the infringement or other misuse of intellectual property rights. For purposes of Section 9.11, a Claim includes disputes arising before the effective date of these Terms. The arbitrator will have the exclusive authority to resolve all threshold arbitrability issues, including whether these Terms are applicable, unconscionable, or enforceable, as well as any defense to arbitration.Excerpt from Figma's Terms of Service (Superseded URL)
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The Federal Arbitration Act governs this provision per Section 9.10. The FTC has authority over unfair or deceptive trade practices related to arbitration disclosures. California consumer protection law and the CFPB have historically scrutinized mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer-facing agreements. EU supervisory authorities may not recognize arbitration as a valid dispute resolution mechanism for consumer claims under EU law, creating potential enforceability limitations for EU-based users. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The delegation of threshold arbitrability questions exclusively to the arbitrator, including unconscionability determinations, is an operationally significant feature. Courts in California and other jurisdictions have at times declined to enforce arbitration clauses or arbitrability delegations in consumer agreements on public policy grounds, creating uncertainty about enforceability for consumer-classification users. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: California users are subject to heightened scrutiny under California consumer protection law. EU and UK users may have limited exposure to this clause given EU Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair contract terms and UK Consumer Rights Act provisions regarding mandatory arbitration. The clause applies globally as drafted but enforceability varies significantly by jurisdiction. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise customers should assess whether their standard procurement terms conflict with mandatory arbitration, as Section 9.18 states that customer purchase order terms are void. B2B customers whose organizations prohibit arbitration clauses in vendor agreements should address this during contract negotiation. The terms do not include an explicit carve-out for B2B disputes from the arbitration requirement. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should confirm whether their organization or user base qualifies as consumers under applicable state law, which may affect enforceability. The opt-out mechanism should be documented and deadline tracked for onboarding workflows. Any updated Terms triggering a new 30-day opt-out window should be reflected in procurement and compliance monitoring processes.
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 requires disputes to proceed through individual binding arbitration conducted under NAM's Comprehensive Dispute Resolution Rules, with a mandatory 60-day pre-arbitration written notice period before a formal demand can be filed. The delegation of threshold arbitrability determinations exclusively to the arbitrator, including questions of unconscionability and enforceability, is an operationally distinct feature that affects the procedural posture of any …
Under this clause, customers who have not opted out within 30 days of first accepting the Terms are required to pursue claims through individual binding arbitration rather than court proceedings, except for intellectual property injunctive relief. The arbitration is conducted under NAM rules, and any fees and costs are allocated in accordance with those rules unless the arbitrator finds a …
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Figma.