You cannot join a class action lawsuit against Whatnot and cannot request a jury trial; any claim you bring must be pursued individually through arbitration.
This analysis describes what Whatnot'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
Class action lawsuits are often the only economically viable way for individuals to pursue small-value claims against large companies; this waiver removes that option entirely.
Interpretive note: Enforceability may vary by jurisdiction; California courts may carve out public injunction claims from this waiver under McGill v. Citibank.
The updated terms establish mandatory arbitration as the exclusive dispute resolution mechanism for influencers, replacing direct court access in California and Australia. Under the revised language, any dispute with Whatnot must proceed through arbitration under the main Terms of Service, which includes a class action waiver. This means influencers cannot bring class or collective claims and cannot access court proceedings except where the main Terms of Service explicitly permits. The practical effect is that individual influencers seeking to resolve disagreements with Whatnot over payments, account suspension, content disputes, or contractual interpretation must use arbitration rather than litigation.
View change record →Australian sellers using Whatnot are now required to resolve all disputes through arbitration rather than through Australian courts. The updated terms state that disputes will be resolved exclusively under the main Terms of Service arbitration provisions, removing the previous option to bring legal action in Los Angeles courts or pursue jury trials. The terms no longer include language allowing court proceedings, except where the main Terms of Service expressly permit.
View change record →Strategic sellers on Whatnot are now subject to mandatory arbitration for all disputes with the platform instead of having access to California courts. The updated agreement states that arbitration under the main Terms of Service is the exclusive forum and procedure for resolving disputes, except only to the extent the Terms of Service expressly permit otherwise. This removes the right to jury trial and appeal to higher courts, streamlining dispute resolution to a single binding arbitration proceeding. You can review the arbitration provisions in Section 21 of Whatnot's main Terms of Service to understand the specific procedures and limitations that will apply to any dispute.
View change record →If Whatnot's practices affect many users in the same way, such as improper fees or account errors, each person must pursue their claim individually rather than collectively, making it economically impractical to challenge low-dollar harms.
How other platforms handle this
You and Teachable agree to resolve any disputes through final and binding arbitration, except as set forth under Exceptions to Agreement to Arbitrate below. You also agree that disputes will only be resolved on an individual basis and not as a class, consolidated, or representative action.
Any dispute arising from or relating to the subject matter of these Terms shall be finally settled by arbitration in San Francisco County, California, in accordance with the Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ("JAMS") then in effect, by ...
WHERE PERMITTED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW, YOU AND NETFLIX AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING. Further, where permitted under the applicable law, unless ...
Monitoring
Whatnot has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"CLASS ACTION WAIVER. YOU AND WHATNOT AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING. Further, unless both you and Whatnot agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person's claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding. JURY TRIAL WAIVER. YOU AND WHATNOT HEREBY WAIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR A JURY.— Excerpt from Whatnot's Whatnot Terms of Service
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Class action waivers in consumer contracts interact with the FTC Act and have been subject to judicial challenge under state unconscionability doctrines. California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act has historically been examined in the context of whether class action waivers defeat the purpose of consumer protection statutes. Federal courts have generally enforced such waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act following AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, but state-specific carve-outs and public injunction rights (as recognized in McGill v. Citibank in California) may limit the waiver's reach. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The waiver reduces the company's exposure to aggregate liability and reputational risk from class litigation, but creates residual risk that California courts may carve out public injunction claims from the waiver's scope. The provision's explicit language extending to 'representative proceedings' also implicates PAGA claims for California-based workers or contractors, which courts have treated differently from consumer class actions. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: California residents may retain the right to seek public injunctive relief in arbitration notwithstanding this waiver under McGill v. Citibank. EU and UK users are generally protected from class action waivers by local consumer law. Illinois and other states with strong consumer protection frameworks may apply scrutiny to this provision. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Sellers operating as businesses on the platform should assess whether this waiver applies to B2B disputes as well as consumer disputes, as the enforceability standard differs between the two contexts. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should monitor evolving case law on the enforceability of class action waivers combined with PAGA waivers in California, and should assess whether the public injunction carve-out requires a separate procedural accommodation in the arbitration clause.
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.
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.
561 arbitration provisions across 197 platforms. ConductAtlas tracks how dispute resolution is being restructured across the internet.
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.
Class action lawsuits are often the only economically viable way for individuals to pursue small-value claims against large companies; this waiver removes that option entirely.
If Whatnot's practices affect many users in the same way, such as improper fees or account errors, each person must pursue their claim individually rather than collectively, making it economically impractical to challenge low-dollar harms.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 16 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Whatnot.