California law and San Francisco courts govern disputes under these terms, except that EEA and UK consumers may use their local courts and local law applies to them.
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
For most users outside the EEA and UK, this provision requires disputes to be governed by California law and litigated in San Francisco courts, which may create practical barriers for users in other US states or countries.
Interpretive note: The enforceability of the California forum selection clause for non-EEA international users depends on local mandatory consumer protection law in each relevant jurisdiction.
Disputes with Pinterest are governed by California law and must be brought in San Francisco courts for most users, though EEA and UK consumers retain the right to use their local courts under mandatory consumer protection provisions.
How other platforms handle this
These Terms shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law rules, and the federal laws of the United States. Any dispute arising from or relating to the subject matter of these Terms shall be finally settled by arbitration in San Francisco County, California...
These Terms of Service and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with them or their subject matter or formation (including non-contractual disputes or claims) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any choice o...
These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provisions. Any disputes not subject to arbitration will be resolved in the state or federal courts located in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Monitoring
Pinterest has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"These Terms shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles. To the extent the parties are permitted under these Terms to initiate litigation in a court, both you and Pinterest agree that any such litigation shall be filed exclusively in the state or federal courts located in San Francisco County, California, and each party agrees to consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts. If you are a consumer in the EEA or the UK, please note that you may file claims in your local courts and that local law may override certain terms.— Excerpt from Pinterest's Pinterest Terms of Service
1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: For EEA consumers, EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) provides that consumers may bring proceedings in the courts of their member state of domicile, and choice of court clauses that derogate from this right are unenforceable in the EU. UK equivalent provisions apply post-Brexit. For US users, the California choice of law and venue clause is generally enforceable subject to state-specific analysis. The terms' carve-out for EEA and UK consumers acknowledges this mandatory law constraint. 2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The California choice of law provision is standard for US technology companies domiciled in California, and the EEA and UK carve-outs reflect mandatory legal requirements. The practical exposure is primarily for non-EEA, non-UK international users who may have limited access to San Francisco courts. 3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EEA and UK users are explicitly protected by the carve-out. Non-EEA international users (e.g., Canada, Australia, other regions) may face practical barriers to enforcing rights if disputes require litigation in San Francisco. Individual US states may also have consumer protection statutes that interact with California choice of law provisions. 4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Organizations with international operations should verify that the governing law clause does not create conflicts with their own contractual or regulatory obligations in non-US jurisdictions. The Pinterest Europe Ltd. contracting entity for EEA/Swiss users creates a separate jurisdictional structure that procurement teams should map. 5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams in non-EEA international markets should assess whether the California governing law clause is compatible with local mandatory consumer protection requirements. For EEA-based compliance teams, the Brussels I Recast consumer jurisdiction rules should be documented as overriding the forum selection clause.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Monitor: 25 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
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.
For most users outside the EEA and UK, this provision requires disputes to be governed by California law and litigated in San Francisco courts, which may create practical barriers for users in other US states or countries.
Disputes with Pinterest are governed by California law and must be brought in San Francisco courts for most users, though EEA and UK consumers retain the right to use their local courts under mandatory consumer protection provisions.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 200 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Pinterest.