Limitation of Liability

What it is

The agreement caps Substack's total aggregate liability to any user at the greater of $100 or the amounts the user paid to Substack in the preceding twelve months, and excludes indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages entirely. This cap applies to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

This provision establishes a specific monetary ceiling on Substack's liability exposure per claim, which for free-tier users would be capped at $100. The exclusion of consequential and indirect damages limits the categories of loss users may recover in any dispute proceeding, including through the arbitration process established elsewhere in the agreement.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

This provision establishes that Substack's maximum liability for any claim is the greater of $100 or amounts paid in the prior twelve months, meaning free users have a $100 ceiling on potential recovery. The agreement also excludes indirect, special, incidental, and consequential damages from any recovery, limiting the types of loss that can be claimed against the platform.

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Limitation of liability clauses in consumer contracts are subject to review under applicable state consumer protection laws, including California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which may restrict the enforceability of liability caps in certain consumer contexts. The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices is broadly relevant. EU consumer protection law may render liability limitation clauses unenforceable against EU consumers for gross negligence or willful misconduct. 2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The $100 floor for free users is a low absolute cap that limits recovery for platform-related losses. This is a common structure in platform terms but the specific dollar amount creates a concrete operational boundary for any dispute resolution proceeding. The clause applies to both individual users and organizational accounts. 3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: California courts may scrutinize liability caps under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act for certain categories of consumer claims. EU users may find the clause unenforceable under the EU Unfair Terms Directive to the extent it excludes liability for gross negligence or intentional acts. The qualifying phrase 'to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law' preserves some flexibility for jurisdictional variation. 4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Organizations using Substack as part of a commercial publishing workflow should note that the liability cap applies regardless of the scale of organizational use or the value of content hosted. The twelve-month payment lookback period means high-volume paid subscribers have a higher effective cap, but the consequential damages exclusion applies universally regardless of amounts paid. 5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether the liability cap is enforceable under the laws of the jurisdictions where organizational users are located. Risk assessments for platform dependency on Substack should account for the practical ceiling on recoverable damages in the event of service disruption, data loss, or content removal disputes.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Perpetual Irrevocable Content License medium
• Mandatory Arbitration and Class Action Waiver medium
• Account Termination at Substack Discretion medium
• User Indemnification Obligation medium
• COPPA Age Restriction and Under-16 Prohibition low
• Content Removal and Acceptable Use Policy low