Track 1 platform and get the weekly governance digest. No credit card required.
This page describes what the document states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability may vary by jurisdiction. Methodology
GitHub's Acceptable Use Policies define the conduct rules all GitHub users must follow when using any GitHub product or service, covering prohibited content types, restricted activities, and platform behavior standards. The agreement prohibits users from posting content that violates laws, infringes intellectual property, transmits malicious code, conducts phishing, generates spam, or facilitates unauthorized cryptomining, and reserves to GitHub the right to remove content or suspend accounts for violations. The policy operates as a parent document to a suite of subsidiary acceptable use sub-policies, each addressing a specific prohibited conduct category in detail.
The GitHub Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) govern permissible conduct on GitHub's platforms and services, operating as a binding supplement to GitHub's Terms of Service and Corporate Terms of Service. The agreement states that users must not post content or engage in activity that violates applicable laws, infringes intellectual property rights, transmits malware, conducts phishing, generates unsolicited bulk communications, or uses GitHub infrastructure for cryptomining without permission; the terms also prohibit content that is sexually obscene, unlawfully discriminatory, or constitutes threats of violence. The policy asserts broad content moderation authority, including the right to remove content, restrict access, and suspend accounts for violations, with GitHub retaining sole discretion over enforcement determinations, which is a standard but operationally significant reservation of rights for developer-dependent users. The document engages frameworks including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and, where applicable to EU-based users, the Digital Services Act and GDPR; the FTC Act is also potentially relevant to deceptive or unfair practices claims. Compliance teams should note that the AUP's broad prohibition categories are implemented through sub-policies linked within the document, meaning full compliance assessment requires review of each subsidiary policy document alongside the master AUP.
Institutional analysis available with Compliance
Regulatory exposure by statute, material risk assessment, vendor due diligence action items, and enforcement precedent. Available on Compliance.
Start Compliance free trialMonitoring
GitHub has updated this document before.
Monitor includes same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
Compliance Governance Intelligence
Need provision-level monitoring and regulatory mapping?
Compliance includes governance timelines, compliance memos, audit-ready analysis, and full provision tracking.
Start Compliance free trialCross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Age Restriction and Minor Protection and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Governance Monitoring
Structured alerts for policy changes, governance events, and provision updates across 318+ platforms.