If something goes wrong and Fitbit is found liable, the most they will pay you is either what you paid them in the past year or one hundred dollars, whichever is higher.
This analysis describes what Fitbit'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
For a platform that collects sensitive health and biometric data, a maximum liability of one hundred dollars is a very low ceiling if a data breach or service failure causes real harm.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the cap may vary by jurisdiction, particularly in the EU, UK, and certain US states with consumer protection statutes addressing data breach liability.
This clause limits the financial remedy available to consumers in the event of a data breach, service failure, or other harm caused by Fitbit, regardless of the severity of the harm or the sensitivity of health data involved.
How other platforms handle this
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event will Synthesia's aggregate liability to you under or in connection with this Agreement exceed the total fees paid or payable by you to Synthesia in the twelve (12) month period immediately preceding the event giving rise to the claim. In...
Google's total liability to you for any claims under these terms, including for any implied warranties, is limited to the amount you paid us to use the Gemini API (or, if we choose, to supplying you the services again) in the 12 months before the breach.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, DUOLINGO SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR REVENUES, WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR ANY LOSS OF DATA, USE, GOODWILL, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES, RESUL...
Monitoring
Fitbit has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF FITBIT, AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, FOR ANY CLAIMS UNDER THESE TERMS, INCLUDING FOR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES, IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT YOU PAID US TO USE THE SERVICES (OR, IF WE CHOOSE, TO SUPPLYING YOU THE SERVICES AGAIN) DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE CLAIM, OR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100), WHICHEVER IS GREATER.— Excerpt from Fitbit's Fitbit Terms of Service
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability caps of this type are common in consumer software agreements and are generally enforceable in the US, but may be challenged or unenforceable under EU consumer protection law, including the EU Consumer Rights Directive, and in certain US states where statutes prohibit limitation of liability for personal data breaches or physical harm. The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices may also be relevant if the cap is applied in a context involving health data misuse. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The cap is a standard industry provision but is particularly notable in the context of health and biometric data collection. If a significant data breach occurred affecting health data, the practical recovery available to affected consumers would be negligible under these terms, which could attract regulatory scrutiny. No specific enforcement action is cited; the general FTC posture on health data protection is the relevant regulatory backdrop. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU and UK users may benefit from consumer protection laws that render such caps unenforceable for certain categories of harm. California consumers may have additional remedies under CCPA for data breaches involving personal information. The cap's enforceability for physical harm claims related to device malfunction may also vary by jurisdiction. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: B2B or enterprise procurement teams integrating Fitbit services should note that this cap applies to the user-facing agreement and may not reflect negotiated terms in any separate enterprise contracts. The cap represents a significant limitation on indemnification rights that should be flagged in vendor risk assessments for organizations deploying Fitbit as a workplace wellness tool. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether the liability cap is consistent with applicable consumer protection statutes in all jurisdictions where Fitbit services are offered. Where the cap may be unenforceable, organizations relying on Fitbit data for health or wellness programs should consider whether separate contractual protections are needed.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Monitor: 25 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
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.
For a platform that collects sensitive health and biometric data, a maximum liability of one hundred dollars is a very low ceiling if a data breach or service failure causes real harm.
This clause limits the financial remedy available to consumers in the event of a data breach, service failure, or other harm caused by Fitbit, regardless of the severity of the harm or the sensitivity of health data involved.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 6 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Fitbit.