Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
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
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 →The updated terms establish a formal Creator Program for Australian users that defines how creators can submit content for potential monetary or credit rewards. Creators grant Whatnot a one-year, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use submitted videos across paid and organic social media, television, and other platforms, while retaining ownership of the original content. The terms require creators to clearly disclose any material connection to Whatnot, including consideration or free products received, in a form specified by Whatnot and compliant with Australian advertising standards and the AANA Code of Ethics.
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 →How other platforms handle this
The Chegg Parties reserve the right to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and you will not in any event settle any claim without the prior written consent of a duly authorized employee of the Chegg Parties.
We reserve the right, at our own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you...and in that case, you agree to cooperate with our defense of those claims.
We reserve the right to assume all or any part of the defense of any such claims and negotiations for settlement, and you agree to fully cooperate with us in doing so.
Monitoring
Whatnot has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 20 platforms.
"Seller agrees to fully indemnify Whatnot should Whatnot receive any third-party claims (such as from a Buyer or a tax authority) connected with Seller's invoices and use of the invoicing tool.Excerpt from Whatnot's Terms of Service
Provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, and regulatory mapping built from archived source documents and historical version tracking.
The clause states: “Seller agrees to fully indemnify Whatnot should Whatnot receive any third-party claims (such as from a Buyer or a tax authority) connected with Seller's invoices and use of the invoicing tool.”
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 233 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Whatnot.