The agreement requires that users and Grubhub each bring claims only on an individual basis, and prohibits participation as a plaintiff or class member in any class action or representative proceeding.
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
Users cannot pool claims with others against Grubhub, which limits their practical ability to pursue small or complex claims that are only viable collectively.
Under this clause, users who proceed with arbitration or any permitted court action must do so individually and cannot join or initiate class or representative claims against Grubhub, as stated in the agreement.
How other platforms handle this
If, however, this Class Action Waiver is deemed invalid or unenforceable with respect to a particular Dispute...neither you nor Chegg will be entitled to arbitration of such Dispute.
Neither you nor we may elect arbitration of any claims seeking only individualized relief asserted by you or us in small claims court, so long as the action remains in that court and is not removed or appealed de novo...
Monitoring
Grubhub has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"YOU ALSO WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS ACTION OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING AGAINST GRUBHUB, WHETHER NOW PENDING OR FILED IN THE FUTURE.— Excerpt from Grubhub's Grubhub Terms of Use
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Class action waivers in consumer contracts engage the Federal Arbitration Act and have been the subject of Supreme Court decisions including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Epic Systems v. Lewis, which generally support enforcement in arbitration contexts. State-level consumer protection laws in California under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act have occasionally been used to challenge such waivers. The FTC may evaluate class action waivers as part of broader review of unfair or deceptive contract terms. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. Class action waivers limit the ability of consumers to aggregate small-value claims, which is the primary mechanism through which consumer protection violations producing diffuse harm are litigated. The provision may deter individual arbitration filings where the cost of arbitration exceeds the value of the claim. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: The European Union prohibits class action waivers in consumer contracts. Several U.S. states, including California, have statutes that may limit enforcement of class action waivers in specific consumer protection contexts. Public injunctive relief claims under California law have been found non-waivable in some circumstances. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Restaurant and merchant partners should assess whether this waiver applies to their agreements with Grubhub or whether separate commercial terms govern. The waiver is framed in terms of individual users but its scope relative to business accounts warrants review. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should evaluate whether the class action waiver is presented with sufficient prominence and clarity at the point of account creation, and should document consent to this specific provision separately from general terms acceptance.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 3 platforms + weekly digest. Monitor: 25 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
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.
561 arbitration provisions across 197 platforms. ConductAtlas tracks how dispute resolution is being restructured across the internet.
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.
Users cannot pool claims with others against Grubhub, which limits their practical ability to pursue small or complex claims that are only viable collectively.
Under this clause, users who proceed with arbitration or any permitted court action must do so individually and cannot join or initiate class or representative claims against Grubhub, as stated in the agreement.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 204 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Grubhub.