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
Datadog also may cooperate with appropriate law enforcement agencies, regulators, or other appropriate third parties to help with the investigation and prosecution of illegal conduct.
StockX reserves the right to remove, restrict, or require modification of any Promotion that violates applicable law or these Terms.
Any suspected fraudulent, abusive illegal activity, or circumstances where We believe there is a risk of physical harm or a threat to the safety of others, may be grounds for termination...and may be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities.
Monitoring
Whatnot has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"We may also consult and cooperate with law enforcement authorities to prosecute Users who violate the law and have the right to comply with court orders requesting or directing us to disclose the identity or other information of Users.— Excerpt from Whatnot's Whatnot Terms of Service
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.
The clause states: “We may also consult and cooperate with law enforcement authorities to prosecute Users who violate the law and have the right to comply with court orders requesting or directing us to disclose the identity or other information of Users.”
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 279 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Whatnot.