Aggregate Liability Cap (US$100)

What it is

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.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

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.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

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.

Institutional analysis (regulatory & governance intelligence)

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. The FTC has authority over unfair or deceptive practices in commercial contexts, though liability cap enforceability is primarily a matter of contract and state law rather than federal consumer protection regulation. Where a client is a financial institution subject to prudential regulation, examiners may assess whether contractual risk allocations with third-party technology vendors satisfy third-party risk management expectations. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. A US$100 aggregate cap is among the most restrictive liability limitations observable in commercial API agreements, particularly for a platform processing consumer financial account credentials, transaction histories, and account balances. While such caps are common in free or development-tier agreements, the operational risk allocation this clause creates is materially significant for any client whose End Users submit real financial data during evaluation. JURISDICTION FLAGS: California courts have, in certain circumstances, declined to enforce limitation of liability clauses where they find the clause unconscionable, particularly in adhesion contracts with significant power disparities. EU member states and UK courts may apply different standards to limitation clauses in B2B agreements. The clause applies globally by its terms but enforceability varies by jurisdiction. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Procurement and vendor management teams should treat this clause as a material risk allocation provision requiring escalation during contract review. The clause effectively transfers all financial risk of Plaid service failures or data incidents to the client. This may conflict with enterprise vendor risk management policies requiring minimum liability coverage from technology providers. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should evaluate whether the US$100 cap is enforceable under applicable state law given the nature of the services and the potential scale of End User data involved. Teams should also assess whether reliance on Development Accounts for any purpose involving real End User financial data creates unacceptable residual risk given this liability allocation.

Applicable agencies

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Client Indemnifies Plaid for Legal Violations high
• End User Consent Required Before Services Engagement high
• Exclusion of Indirect and Consequential Damages high
• Failure of Compliance Review Enables Service Suspension high
• FCRA Consumer Report Prohibition high
• Income Payroll Data Use Restricted to Approved Use Case high