Any legal dispute with Kick must be resolved under Australian law in Australian courts, regardless of where you live.
This analysis describes what Kick'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
For users in the EU, UK, US, or elsewhere, this clause attempts to limit dispute resolution to Australian courts, which may be practically inaccessible and may conflict with mandatory consumer protection rights in the user's home jurisdiction.
Interpretive note: The enforceability of the exclusive jurisdiction clause varies significantly by jurisdiction; EU and UK consumers have mandatory rights to bring disputes locally that this clause cannot override.
If you have a dispute with Kick, this clause asserts that it must be resolved in New South Wales, Australia, which may be prohibitively expensive or impractical for most users. However, mandatory consumer protection laws in the EU, UK, and certain US states may override this clause in practice.
How other platforms handle this
This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein, without regard to conflict of law principles. Each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario, Canada for t...
These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of law principles. Any disputes not subject to arbitration shall be brought exclusively in the state or federal courts located in San Francisco County, California.
These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. Any disputes arising out of or relating to these Terms or the Services shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal court...
Monitoring
Kick has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.
"These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of New South Wales, Australia, and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New South Wales, Australia to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to these Terms or the Services.— Excerpt from Kick's Kick Terms of Service
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: This clause directly engages GDPR in the EU context, where mandatory consumer protection provisions cannot be waived by contract. EU users retain the right to bring claims in their home jurisdiction under Brussels I Regulation (recast). UK users retain similar rights under retained EU law and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Australian Consumer Law applies as the baseline framework. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The governing law clause is standard for an Australian-incorporated entity, but the exclusive jurisdiction assertion is likely to be unenforceable against EU and UK consumers as a matter of mandatory law. US state courts may similarly decline to enforce exclusive foreign jurisdiction clauses in consumer disputes. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU users have enforceable rights to bring consumer disputes in their home jurisdiction courts regardless of contractual forum selection clauses, under EU consumer protection framework. UK users retain similar protections. For US users, enforceability of the exclusive jurisdiction clause will depend on state law and the specific nature of the dispute. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Business partners and institutional counterparties contracting with Kick should assess whether the New South Wales governing law choice is acceptable for their operational and compliance framework, and whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause is consistent with their own dispute resolution requirements. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams in EU and UK jurisdictions should document that mandatory consumer protection rights are not waived by this clause, and should assess whether Kick's operational dispute resolution practices align with applicable mandatory law in their markets.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Watcher: 10 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
Professional Governance Intelligence
Need to monitor specific governance provisions?
Professional includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.
Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.
For users in the EU, UK, US, or elsewhere, this clause attempts to limit dispute resolution to Australian courts, which may be practically inaccessible and may conflict with mandatory consumer protection rights in the user's home jurisdiction.
If you have a dispute with Kick, this clause asserts that it must be resolved in New South Wales, Australia, which may be prohibitively expensive or impractical for most users. However, mandatory consumer protection laws in the EU, UK, and certain US states may override this clause in practice.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 175 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Kick.