Mandatory Arbitration

What it is

The agreement requires disputes between users and Together AI to be resolved through binding individual arbitration rather than court litigation, with a limited exception for small claims court.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

This provision requires users to resolve disputes through individual arbitration proceedings rather than civil court litigation. The clause also includes a class action waiver, which means users agree not to bring or participate in class or collective actions against Together AI.

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

Under this clause, users who have disputes with Together AI must proceed through individual binding arbitration rather than filing suit in court. The agreement requires that arbitration proceed on an individual basis, and users agree to waive participation in class, collective, or representative proceedings.

What you can do

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer and business-to-business technology contracts are subject to review under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and, where applicable, state consumer protection statutes. The FTC has issued guidance on unfair or deceptive practices that may apply to arbitration clauses in consumer-facing AI service agreements. Courts in California and other states have at times declined to enforce arbitration clauses found to be unconscionable under state law, creating jurisdictional variance in enforceability. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The provision is common in technology service agreements but creates meaningful procedural constraints for users with disputes, particularly those involving small-dollar claims that may not be economically viable to arbitrate individually. The class action waiver component raises heightened scrutiny in California under the California Arbitration Act and related consumer protection frameworks. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: California users have heightened exposure given state-specific limitations on class action waivers and unconscionability doctrines. EU users may find this provision inapplicable or unenforceable under EU consumer protection law, which generally preserves access to courts in the user's home jurisdiction. UK users are similarly protected by statutory dispute resolution rights. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise procurement teams should evaluate whether the arbitration clause applies to B2B relationships or is limited to consumer-facing users, and whether the applicable arbitration rules (AAA, JAMS, or other) are specified. The absence of specified arbitration rules or venue creates ambiguity that may require negotiation in enterprise contracts. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should determine whether the arbitration clause triggers any disclosure obligations under state consumer protection statutes, confirm opt-out procedures and deadlines are communicated to affected users, and assess whether EU or UK employees or customers accessing the platform may be subject to this clause.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Class Action Waiver high
• User Indemnification Obligation medium
• Liability Limitation medium
• Account Termination and Suspension medium
• Acceptable Use Policy Restrictions medium
• Intellectual Property and User Content License medium

Related Analysis

• Coinbase Requires Mandatory Arbitration. You Have 30 Days to Opt Out.

  Coinbase's User Agreement includes a mandatory arbitration clause that most users may not have reviewed. Here is what the clause states and how the opt-out process works.