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.
Pinterest limits its total aggregate liability for all claims arising from the Service to USD $100 for US and non-EEA/UK users, and excludes liability for indirect, consequential, punitive, and intangible losses. EEA and UK consumers are expressly exempted from this cap.
This analysis describes what Pinterest'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 a USD $100 ceiling on Pinterest's total financial exposure to any individual user for all claims combined, regardless of the nature or scale of harm alleged, subject to applicable law limitations. The EEA and UK carve-out reflects mandatory consumer protection requirements in those jurisdictions.
Under this clause, US users are contractually limited to recovering no more than USD $100 from Pinterest in aggregate for all Service-related claims, with indirect, consequential, and punitive damages excluded. EEA and UK consumers operate under a separate liability standard where Pinterest's liability is limited to foreseeable damages arising from breach of material contractual obligations.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle $100 Aggregate Liability Cap and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Pinterest has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 20 platforms.
"To the maximum extent permitted by law, we shall not be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages, or any loss of profits or revenues, whether incurred directly or indirectly, or any loss of data, use, goodwill, or other intangible losses, resulting from (a) your access to or use of or inability to access or use the Service; (b) any conduct or content of any third party on the Service, including without limitation, any defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of other users or third parties; or (c) unauthorized access, use or alteration of your transmissions or content. In no event shall our aggregate liability for all claims relating to the Service exceed one hundred U.S. dollars (U.S. $100.00). The foregoing does not affect any liability that cannot be excluded or limited under applicable law. If we cause damage to you and you're a consumer in the EEA or UK, the above doesn't apply.Excerpt from Pinterest's Terms of Service
1. REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The $100 liability cap engages state consumer protection frameworks, particularly in California, where unconscionability doctrine may limit enforceability of nominal damage caps in consumer contracts. The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices may be relevant if the cap materially impedes consumer remedies for platform failures. For EEA users, the EU Consumer Rights Directive and national implementing legislation constrain the terms on which liability may be excluded or capped, consistent with the document's EEA carve-out. 2. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. A $100 aggregate cap applicable to all claims, combined with exclusion of consequential and intangible losses including data loss, creates a significant asymmetry between potential user harm and available contractual remedy for US users. Applicable law may limit enforcement of this cap in specific scenarios, but the document does not identify those scenarios beyond the EEA/UK carve-out. 3. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EEA and UK users are expressly exempted. California courts have scrutinized nominal liability caps in consumer contracts under unconscionability analysis. States with strong consumer protection statutes may present additional enforceability questions. The cap's interaction with data breach liability, where statutory damages may apply under state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act or Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, warrants specific legal review. 4. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Organizations using Pinterest as a business platform should assess whether the $100 cap applies to business account relationships or whether the Business Terms of Service establish different liability terms. The indemnification provision in Section 8 creates a one-directional financial obligation for commercial users who fail to execute Business Terms. 5. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should evaluate whether the liability cap, as applied to data loss or unauthorized access scenarios described in Section 5, interacts with breach notification obligations under state privacy laws. The document's acknowledgment that the cap does not affect liability that cannot be excluded under applicable law should be mapped to specific statutory rights in relevant jurisdictions.
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, and regulatory mapping built from archived source documents and historical version tracking.
This provision establishes a USD $100 ceiling on Pinterest's total financial exposure to any individual user for all claims combined, regardless of the nature or scale of harm alleged, subject to applicable law limitations. The EEA and UK carve-out reflects mandatory consumer protection requirements in those jurisdictions.
Under this clause, US users are contractually limited to recovering no more than USD $100 from Pinterest in aggregate for all Service-related claims, with indirect, consequential, and punitive damages excluded. EEA and UK consumers operate under a separate liability standard where Pinterest's liability is limited to foreseeable damages arising from breach of material contractual obligations.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Pinterest.