Get the weekly 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. No account.
Consensys's total financial liability to any user is capped at the greater of fees paid in the prior 12 months or $25,000, with consequential, indirect, and punitive damages excluded entirely; exceptions apply for proprietary rights claims and indemnification obligations.
This analysis describes what MetaMask'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 establishes the maximum financial exposure Consensys bears under the Agreement for most claim types, including losses arising from service outages, unauthorized access, or third-party failures; for users of free offerings, the cap is $25,000 regardless of actual loss.
The updated terms explicitly state that UK, EU, and EEA consumers retain statutory consumer protection rights that cannot be limited or excluded by the agreement, and that applicable local law prevails in the event of conflict with these terms. This adds clarity to the legal framework but does not change substantive protections for those users. The terms also clarify that mUSD is a third-party digital asset not issued by Consensys, treating it as a third-party service subject to the agreement's limitations on Consensys' responsibility for third-party services.
View change record →Under this clause, users of free MetaMask products whose claims arise from service failures, security incidents, or third-party losses are subject to a $25,000 aggregate liability cap against Consensys, and may not recover lost profits, indirect losses, or consequential damages. The document states the foregoing disclaimer will not apply to the extent prohibited by law, preserving some jurisdiction-specific protections.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Liability Cap and Exclusion of Consequential Damages and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
MetaMask has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CLAIMS RELATING TO A BREACH OF OUR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AS GOVERNED BY SECTION 7 AND INDEMNIFICATION AS GOVERNED BY SECTION 8, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF EACH PARTY TOGETHER WITH ALL OF ITS AFFILIATES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY ARISES FROM NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY YOU HEREUNDER FOR THE OFFERINGS GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY IN THE TWELVE MONTHS PRECEDING THE FIRST INCIDENT OUT OF WHICH THE LIABILITY AROSE, OR, IF NO FEES HAVE BEEN PAID, $25,000.Excerpt from MetaMask's Terms of Use
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability caps and consequential damage exclusions in consumer contracts engage consumer protection frameworks in the EU (Consumer Rights Directive, GDPR Article 82 for data breach liability), UK (Consumer Rights Act 2015), and US state law. Under GDPR, data subjects retain a right to compensation for material and non-material damage from data protection violations that may not be waivable by contract. The document's carve-out for statutory rights that cannot be excluded by law partially addresses this tension. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High for institutional users and developers relying on Infura or MetaMask infrastructure for production applications, as the cap may be materially below actual operational loss in the event of a significant outage or security incident. For individual retail users of the free MetaMask wallet, the $25,000 cap is the operative ceiling for all covered claims. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU/EEA and UK consumer protection law may render certain elements of this provision unenforceable against consumers in those jurisdictions. California's consumer protection statutes may also limit the enforceability of consequential damage exclusions in specific consumer contexts. The document acknowledges jurisdictional limitations through its statutory rights carve-out. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Business accounts and API integrators should assess whether the $25,000 or 12-month fee cap is adequate relative to their operational dependence on Consensys infrastructure, and whether upstream liability limitations should be reflected in downstream contracts with their own users. The exclusion of consequential damages may affect indemnification chain analysis in multi-tier service arrangements. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should map which claim types fall outside the cap (Section 7 proprietary rights, Section 8 indemnification) and assess whether the cap's application to negligence claims is consistent with applicable law in each operating jurisdiction. GDPR liability exposure under Article 82 should be evaluated separately from the contractual cap.
Full institutional analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Monitor: same-day alerts on the platforms you choose. Analyst: full institutional analysis.
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.
This provision establishes the maximum financial exposure Consensys bears under the Agreement for most claim types, including losses arising from service outages, unauthorized access, or third-party failures; for users of free offerings, the cap is $25,000 regardless of actual loss.
Under this clause, users of free MetaMask products whose claims arise from service failures, security incidents, or third-party losses are subject to a $25,000 aggregate liability cap against Consensys, and may not recover lost profits, indirect losses, or consequential damages. The document states the foregoing disclaimer will not apply to the extent prohibited by law, preserving some jurisdiction-specific protections.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by MetaMask.