Third-party AI providers prohibited from training on user data

The updated Privacy Policy now explicitly states it covers retirement account management (401k, SEP IRA, IRA accounts) and adds Stripe alongside Plaid as a third-party service provider that collects financial institution data. The policy restructures how it describes Gusto's role in different contexts: when Gusto acts as a service provider processing payroll or other data on behalf of employers, when it acts as an employer itself, or when it operates as a co-employer under a professional organization (PEO) arrangement, with separate privacy notices applying in each case. The policy introduces a new commitment that de-identified data will not be re-identified except to verify compliance with applicable law. If you connect a bank account through Stripe, that data will be treated under Stripe's Privacy Policy, which you should review separately.

The updated terms make explicit that using Gusto's background check service constitutes a binding agreement. Previously, the terms of the service relationship may have been less clearly stated. Now, the agreement clarifies that an authorized signatory represents they have authority to bind the organization, and that three actions trigger binding acceptance: checking a box, initiating a background check, or accessing the service. This means employers should ensure the person clicking through has actual authority to commit the organization to the full Background Check Customer Agreement before proceeding.

The updated terms now explicitly state that employers accept mandatory individual arbitration and waive the right to participate in class-action lawsuits or pursue relief in court with a jury trial. This significantly limits employers' ability to challenge Gusto's practices collectively or seek resolution through the court system. Any disputes employers have with Gusto must be resolved individually through arbitration, which typically involves private, binding proceedings with limited appeal options and discovery rights compared to court litigation.