This delegation clause grants an arbitrator, rather than any court, exclusive authority to resolve questions about the validity, enforceability, applicability, and formation of the arbitration agreement itself, including unconscionability challenges.
This analysis describes what Lime'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 routes all threshold arbitrability questions, including challenges to the arbitration agreement's enforceability on unconscionability or other grounds, to the arbitrator rather than a court, subject to the carve-out that class action waiver unenforceability challenges must be resolved by a court.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the delegation clause as applied to unconscionability challenges in California and certain other jurisdictions depends on judicial interpretation of the clear and unmistakable standard under the FAA and applicable state law.
Under this clause, a user who believes the arbitration agreement is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable must raise that challenge before an arbitrator rather than a court, with limited judicial review available. The sole exception is that challenges to the enforceability of the class action waiver must be resolved by a court.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Delegation Clause in Arbitration and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →"Only an arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any Dispute arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Mutual Arbitration Agreement, including without limitation any claim that all or any part of this Mutual Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. An arbitrator shall also have exclusive authority to resolve all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether these Terms are applicable, unconscionable, or illusory and any defense to arbitration, including without limitation waiver, delay, laches, or estoppel.Excerpt from Lime's Terms of Service
1.
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.
This provision routes all threshold arbitrability questions, including challenges to the arbitration agreement's enforceability on unconscionability or other grounds, to the arbitrator rather than a court, subject to the carve-out that class action waiver unenforceability challenges must be resolved by a court.
Under this clause, a user who believes the arbitration agreement is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable must raise that challenge before an arbitrator rather than a court, with limited judicial review available. The sole exception is that challenges to the enforceability of the class action waiver must be resolved by a court.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Lime.