Limitation of Liability

What it is

StockX caps what it can owe you in damages at either what you paid them in the last six months or $100, whichever is more, and it will not pay for lost profits, data loss, or other indirect harm regardless of what went wrong.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

For high-value transactions on StockX, where a single purchase or sale could be worth thousands of dollars, this clause limits the platform's financial exposure to a fraction of the actual transaction value, shifting the economic risk of platform errors or failures almost entirely to users.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

If a platform error, authentication failure, or service disruption causes you to lose a significant sum on a high-value transaction, this clause limits your ability to recover more than $100 or your last six months of fees paid, which could be far less than your actual loss.

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Limitation-of-liability clauses in consumer contracts are subject to scrutiny under the FTC Act and applicable state consumer protection statutes. In the EU and UK, limitation clauses that exclude or restrict liability for consumer losses in ways that create a significant imbalance between the parties' rights may be deemed unfair and unenforceable under the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015. The $100 damages cap in particular creates a pronounced asymmetry between platform exposure and consumer loss on high-value transactions. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High for international operations. In the US, courts have generally upheld reasonable limitation-of-liability clauses in commercial contracts, though consumer contracts receive heightened scrutiny. The $100 hard cap is particularly aggressive for a marketplace where individual transactions can reach thousands of dollars and may face challenge as unconscionable in certain jurisdictions. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU and UK consumer law imposes non-waivable statutory rights that may override this limitation. Australian Consumer Law similarly provides guarantees that cannot be excluded by contract for consumer transactions. California courts have shown willingness to scrutinize unconscionability claims in consumer contracts with highly asymmetric damage caps. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Business-to-business users and institutional buyers should assess whether the $100 damages cap is acceptable commercial risk for their transaction volumes. High-volume sellers should consider whether platform insurance or other risk management mechanisms are necessary given this contractual ceiling. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Teams should assess whether this limitation is disclosed clearly and prominently enough to satisfy consumer protection notice requirements, whether it aligns with applicable law in each operating jurisdiction, and whether marketing representations about StockX's authentication guarantee create implied commitments that are inconsistent with this limitation.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Mandatory Arbitration and Class Action Waiver high
• Account Suspension and Fund Withholding high
• Authentication as Final Determination high
• Intellectual Property License Grant medium
• Age Restriction and Parental Consent medium
• Governing Law and Jurisdiction medium