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 all disputes between users and Grubhub to be resolved through binding individual arbitration rather than court litigation, with limited exceptions for small claims court and intellectual property injunctions.
This analysis describes what Grubhub'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 that consumer claims against Grubhub proceed through individual arbitration proceedings rather than court, which affects the procedural mechanisms available to users for resolving disputes arising from platform use.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of this clause may vary by jurisdiction, and some courts have declined to enforce consumer arbitration agreements where notice or opt-out mechanisms were found insufficient.
Under this clause, users who do not opt out within 30 days of account creation are required to resolve all disputes with Grubhub through individual binding arbitration, and the agreement specifies that arbitration will be conducted by JAMS under its applicable rules.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Individual Arbitration and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Grubhub has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 20 platforms.
"You and Grubhub agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or the use of the Service (collectively, 'Disputes') will be settled by binding arbitration, except that each party retains the right to bring an individual action in small claims court and the right to seek injunctive or other equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the actual or threatened infringement, misappropriation or violation of a party's copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents, or other intellectual property rights.Excerpt from Grubhub's Terms of Use
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts engage the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally favors enforcement of arbitration agreements, and FTC Act standards for unfair or deceptive practices where arbitration terms are not clearly disclosed. State-level consumer protection statutes in California, New Jersey, and other jurisdictions may limit enforcement in specific consumer contexts. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously examined arbitration clauses in consumer financial products, though its rulemaking authority over non-financial platforms is limited. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium-High. The provision channels all consumer disputes into individual arbitration, which reduces aggregate legal exposure from multi-plaintiff litigation but creates ongoing operational requirements for arbitration administration. Enforceability depends on whether adequate notice was provided at account creation and whether the opt-out mechanism was meaningfully accessible. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: California courts have occasionally declined to enforce arbitration agreements in consumer contracts where procedural or substantive unconscionability is established. The European Union does not recognize pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts under EU consumer protection law, creating potential exposure if EU residents access the platform. Illinois and Washington state courts have also scrutinized consumer arbitration terms. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: B2B procurement teams reviewing platform agreements that incorporate these terms should assess whether mandatory arbitration applies to business accounts as well as individual consumers. The clause asserts that class arbitration is also waived, which may affect how restaurant or merchant partners resolve aggregate disputes. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should audit whether the arbitration opt-out mechanism is displayed prominently during account creation and whether the 30-day window is logged with a timestamp for evidentiary purposes. Consent mechanism documentation should be reviewed to confirm that agreement to arbitration terms is recorded at the point of account creation rather than solely through browsewrap.
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, and regulatory mapping built from archived source documents and historical version tracking.
This provision requires that consumer claims against Grubhub proceed through individual arbitration proceedings rather than court, which affects the procedural mechanisms available to users for resolving disputes arising from platform use.
Under this clause, users who do not opt out within 30 days of account creation are required to resolve all disputes with Grubhub through individual binding arbitration, and the agreement specifies that arbitration will be conducted by JAMS under its applicable rules.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Grubhub.