The agreement caps Plaid's total financial liability to the client at US$100 across all claims, regardless of the cause of action, including contract, tort, and strict liability theories. This cap applies even if other remedies specified in the terms are found to have failed.
This analysis describes what Plaid'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 contractual ceiling of US$100 on all monetary recovery against Plaid under the Developer Terms, which applies to clients processing potentially large volumes of End User financial data. The clause applies across all legal theories and survives findings that other contract remedies have failed of their essential purpose.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of a US$100 cap may vary by jurisdiction and may be subject to unconscionability challenge, particularly in adhesion contract contexts.
Under this clause, a client's total contractual recovery from Plaid for any service failure, data incident, or breach is limited to US$100 regardless of the scale of harm or the legal theory asserted. The agreement requires that this limitation apply even if arbitral or judicial remedies are found to have failed of their essential purpose.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Aggregate Liability Cap (US$100) and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →"TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, PLAID'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THESE TERMS WILL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS (US$100.00). THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE WAIVERS AND LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION 8 APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE AND WILL SURVIVE AND APPLY EVEN IF ANY LIMITED REMEDY SPECIFIED IN THESE TERMS ARE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.Excerpt from Plaid's Terms of Use
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability caps of this type engage general commercial contract law and are commonly reviewed under the unconscionability doctrine in California and other jurisdictions.
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 establishes a contractual ceiling of US$100 on all monetary recovery against Plaid under the Developer Terms, which applies to clients processing potentially large volumes of End User financial data. The clause applies across all legal theories and survives findings that other contract remedies have failed of their essential purpose.
Under this clause, a client's total contractual recovery from Plaid for any service failure, data incident, or breach is limited to US$100 regardless of the scale of harm or the legal theory asserted. The agreement requires that this limitation apply even if arbitral or judicial remedies are found to have failed of their essential purpose.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Plaid.