Mandatory Arbitration Clause

What it is

If you have a problem with GOAT, you must resolve it through private arbitration rather than suing in court, with limited exceptions for small claims and intellectual property emergencies.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

Arbitration is a private process with different rules than court, and you generally cannot appeal the outcome; this clause determines how any serious dispute with GOAT will be handled.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

This provision means that if you have a dispute about a purchase, sale, or account issue with GOAT, you cannot take it to a standard court; the process is handled by a private arbitrator, which can be less accessible for consumers seeking smaller recoveries.

What you can do

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts engage the Federal Arbitration Act and have been broadly upheld by U.S. federal courts following AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Epic Systems v. Lewis, though California courts have applied Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services to impose minimum consumer protections on arbitration agreements. The FTC has identified mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts as an area of ongoing review. EU and UK users may have additional protections under local unfair contract terms regulations that could limit enforceability. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The clause broadly covers all disputes arising out of or relating to the Terms or use of the Services, which encompasses most foreseeable consumer grievances including product authenticity disputes, payment issues, and account actions. The carve-out for intellectual property and small claims provides limited practical relief for most consumer disputes. JURISDICTION FLAGS: California residents may have additional protections under Armendariz and related California consumer arbitration standards, requiring GOAT to pay arbitration costs in some circumstances. EU users subject to the EU Unfair Terms Directive may be able to challenge mandatory arbitration clauses that effectively deny access to courts. Illinois, New York, and other states with strong consumer protection statutes may also create heightened scrutiny. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: B2B partners and sellers contracting with GOAT should note that this clause applies broadly to all users and is not limited to consumer transactions; procurement teams should assess whether their organization's standard contract terms are compatible with or superseded by this arbitration obligation. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should verify that the arbitration opt-out mechanism is clearly disclosed at the point of account creation and not buried in terms, as obscured opt-out procedures could attract FTC scrutiny. The JAMS arbitration rules referenced should be reviewed to confirm consumer-protective minimum standards are incorporated. Legal teams with EU or UK users should assess whether a jurisdiction-specific carve-out is needed.

Applicable agencies

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Class Action Waiver high
• Limitation of Liability high
• Perpetual Content License medium
• Account Termination at Sole Discretion medium
• Governing Law and Venue medium
• Seller Fees and Commission Structure medium

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.