If you have a problem with Paramount+, you cannot sue them in regular court — instead, you must use a private arbitration process to resolve the dispute individually.
Consumer impact (what this means for users)
This clause eliminates your ability to take Paramount to court over billing errors, service failures, or privacy violations — you must instead use a private arbitrator, and the outcome is binding and largely unreviewable by any court.
What you can do
⚠️ These actions may provide transparency or partial mitigation but may not fully address the underlying issue. Effectiveness varies by jurisdiction and individual circumstances.
Opt Out of Arbitration
Within 30 days
Within 30 days of creating your Paramount+ account, send a written notice stating that you are opting out of the arbitration agreement. Include your name, account email address, and a clear statement of your intent to opt out. Send via certified mail to preserve proof of delivery.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Arbitration Clause and similar clauses.
Arbitration removes your right to have a judge or jury decide your case, and the process is typically more favorable to large corporations than to individual consumers.
View original clause language
YOU AND PARAMOUNT AGREE THAT ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THESE TERMS OR THE BREACH, TERMINATION, ENFORCEMENT, INTERPRETATION OR VALIDITY THEREOF OR THE USE OF THE SERVICE (COLLECTIVELY, 'DISPUTES') WILL BE SETTLED BY BINDING ARBITRATION, EXCEPT THAT EACH PARTY RETAINS THE RIGHT TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE OR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO PREVENT THE ACTUAL OR THREATENED INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION OR VIOLATION OF A PARTY'S COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, TRADE SECRETS, PATENTS, OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: This provision implicates the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.) as the primary enforcement vehicle. FTC Act Section 5 (15 U.S.C. §45) applies to the fairness and conspicuousness of the arbitration disclosure. California law is particularly relevant: under McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, arbitration clauses that waive the right to seek public injunctive relief under California consumer protection statutes (UCL, CLRA, FAL) are unenforceable as a matter of California public policy. The CFPB's 2017 arbitration rule (subsequently overturned by Congress) and ongoing FTC scrutiny of mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts remain live regulatory risks.
🔒
Compliance intelligence locked
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Watcher: regulatory citations. Professional: full compliance memo.
Applicable agencies
FTC
The FTC has authority under Section 5 to challenge mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts as unfair or deceptive practices, particularly where disclosure is inadequate.
State Attorneys General in California and New York have active enforcement programs challenging overbroad consumer arbitration clauses under state consumer protection statutes.