California law governs this agreement, and any court disputes must be filed in San Francisco, California courts.
This analysis describes what Gusto'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
Employer-customers outside California who have disputes not covered by the arbitration clause must litigate in California courts, which may be impractical or expensive for businesses in other states.
The updated terms make explicit that requesting a background check through Gusto creates a legally binding agreement not just with Gusto but also incorporating terms from Gusto's payroll service and Checkr's service agreement. This means customers are committing to multiple overlapping sets of terms when they initiate a background check request. The change does not appear to alter the substantive rights or obligations, but rather clarifies their scope and binding nature in writing.
View change record →Developers integrating with Gusto's platform are now bound by mandatory arbitration and class action waiver provisions, meaning they cannot join or file class actions against Gusto and must resolve disputes through individual, binding arbitration. The updated terms also grant Gusto the right to modify, update, or discontinue developer tools at its sole discretion without notice or liability, which could disrupt integrations and require developers to absorb costs of upgrading to new versions. Developers should review Section 19 of the updated terms carefully before creating or maintaining integrations with Gusto's platform, and consider whether the arbitration and modification provisions align with their business and legal risk tolerance.
View change record →Removal of explicit California governing law and San Francisco venue provisions eliminates clarity on which jurisdiction controls disputes, though this may be addressed in updated terms.
View full change record →Non-California businesses using Gusto that have a dispute not subject to arbitration must pursue it in San Francisco courts under California law, creating a potential geographic and logistical barrier to seeking legal recourse.
How other platforms handle this
These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws rules, and the proper venue for any disputes arising out of or relating to any of the same will be the arbitration venue set forth in Section 9, or if arbitration does not apply, then the state and fe...
In the EU and EEA, the choice of Texas governing law shall not apply only where a mandatory consumer protection law explicitly prohibits such choice of law provisions.
For any claims that are not subject to arbitration...U.S. Residents: Delaware law; venue exclusively in the state or federal courts in New Castle County, Delaware
"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of law provisions. Any disputes not subject to arbitration shall be resolved exclusively in the state or federal courts located in San Francisco County, California.Excerpt from Gusto's Terms of Service
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Choice of law and venue provisions are generally enforceable in commercial contracts between businesses under federal and state law.
Enforcement risk, jurisdiction flags, contract triggers, and due diligence action items.
Get the 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.
Employer-customers outside California who have disputes not covered by the arbitration clause must litigate in California courts, which may be impractical or expensive for businesses in other states.
Non-California businesses using Gusto that have a dispute not subject to arbitration must pursue it in San Francisco courts under California law, creating a potential geographic and logistical barrier to seeking legal recourse.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 267 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Gusto.