If Signal causes you harm, the maximum amount you can recover from them in any legal claim is $100, and you cannot sue them for lost profits, punitive damages, or most other types of financial loss.
This analysis describes what Signal'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 cap means that even if Signal's service fails in a way that causes significant harm, users have very limited financial recourse; the $100 ceiling applies regardless of the actual harm suffered.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the $100 cap against consumers may vary by jurisdiction; California courts and EU consumer protection law may limit or override this provision in certain circumstances.
Users cannot recover more than $100 from Signal in any dispute, regardless of the harm caused; certain damage types including consequential and punitive damages are excluded entirely, subject to applicable state law limitations on such waivers.
How other platforms handle this
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event will Synthesia's aggregate liability to you under or in connection with this Agreement exceed the total fees paid or payable by you to Synthesia in the twelve (12) month period immediately preceding the event giving rise to the claim. In...
Google's total liability to you for any claims under these terms, including for any implied warranties, is limited to the amount you paid us to use the Gemini API (or, if we choose, to supplying you the services again) in the 12 months before the breach.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, DUOLINGO 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, RESUL...
Monitoring
Signal has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"THE SIGNAL PARTIES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES RELATING TO, ARISING OUT OF, OR IN ANY WAY IN CONNECTION WITH OUR TERMS, US, OR OUR SERVICES, EVEN IF THE SIGNAL PARTIES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY RELATING TO, ARISING OUT OF, OR IN ANY WAY IN CONNECTION WITH OUR TERMS, US, OR OUR SERVICES WILL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100).— Excerpt from Signal's Signal Privacy Policy
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Limitation of liability clauses are broadly enforceable in commercial contracts under US law, but some state consumer protection statutes limit their application in consumer contracts. California, which governs these terms, generally permits such limitations in non-consumer commercial agreements but courts may scrutinize unconscionable provisions in consumer-facing agreements. The FTC has authority to challenge limitations that are deceptive or effectively eliminate consumer recourse. The clause itself acknowledges that 'the laws of some states or jurisdictions may not allow the exclusion or limitation of certain damages,' preserving jurisdictional carve-outs. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The $100 cap is low even by consumer software standards and may face unconscionability challenges in some jurisdictions, particularly where Signal's service failures cause material harm. However, given Signal's nonprofit structure and the free nature of the service, courts may assess the cap differently than they would for a commercial paid service. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU consumer protection law, including the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, may limit the enforceability of blanket liability exclusions against EU consumers. UK consumer rights legislation similarly restricts limitations that exclude liability for negligence causing harm. California's consumer protection framework may also affect enforceability depending on the nature of the claim. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise or organizational users relying on Signal for mission-critical communications should note that no meaningful financial remedy exists under this agreement for service failures. Organizations with liability exposure related to communications should assess whether Signal's terms are compatible with their contractual obligations to clients or partners. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams advising on Signal deployment should document the $100 cap and exclusion of consequential damages as a risk acceptance item. In jurisdictions where such caps may be unenforceable against consumers, the practical recourse may be broader than the agreement states, but this cannot be assumed without jurisdiction-specific legal analysis.
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.
This cap means that even if Signal's service fails in a way that causes significant harm, users have very limited financial recourse; the $100 ceiling applies regardless of the actual harm suffered.
Users cannot recover more than $100 from Signal in any dispute, regardless of the harm caused; certain damage types including consequential and punitive damages are excluded entirely, subject to applicable state law limitations on such waivers.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 1 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Signal.