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.
The agreement caps Writer's total aggregate liability for all claims arising from the services at $100, and excludes liability for indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or reliance damages including lost data, lost profits, and business interruption. The document acknowledges that some jurisdictions may not permit these limitations.
This analysis describes what Writer'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
This provision limits the maximum financial recovery available to any individual user for all claims related to the services to $100, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the harm alleged. The exclusion of consequential and indirect damages further narrows the categories of recoverable losses under the agreement.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the $100 cap depends on applicable jurisdiction; some states and the EU may not permit such limitations in consumer contracts.
Under this clause, the maximum amount a user can recover from Writer for any claim related to the services is $100, and categories including lost data, lost profits, and business interruption are excluded from recoverable damages. The document states that some jurisdictions do not permit these limitations, and users in those jurisdictions may retain additional rights.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Aggregate Liability Cap and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Writer has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"TO FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW: (A) IN NO EVENT WILL THE WRITER PARTIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OF USE, LOST DATA, LOST PROFITS, LOST REVENUES, LOSS OF GOODWILL, INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS OR FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, RELIANCE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, EVEN IF INFORMED OF THEIR POSSIBILITY IN ADVANCE, OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, OR ANY OTHER THEORY; AND (B) THE WRITER PARTIES' TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES, AND CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ANY CLAIM RELATED TO THE TO THE SERVICES SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100).Excerpt from Writer's Terms of Service
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Liability caps and consequential damages exclusions in consumer-facing agreements are subject to review under applicable state consumer protection statutes and, in the EU, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. The FTC and state attorneys general are the primary authorities with oversight over potentially unfair contract terms. California's consumer protection framework may impose constraints on the enforceability of liability limitations in standard-form consumer contracts. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. A $100 aggregate cap is a fixed dollar amount that may be disproportionately low relative to the value of services or data at risk, particularly for business users relying on the platform for content generation or operational workflows. The cap applies to all damages and all causes of action, which is a broad assertion. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU member states and certain U.S. states may not permit aggregate liability caps of this magnitude in consumer contracts. California, New Jersey, and other jurisdictions with active consumer protection enforcement may present heightened exposure. The agreement acknowledges jurisdictional variability with the phrase 'to the fullest extent permissible under applicable law'. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Organizations using Writer under non-Enterprise terms and relying on the platform for business-critical operations should assess whether the $100 cap is commercially acceptable and whether the Enterprise agreement provides different liability terms. Procurement and legal teams should flag this cap as a material risk item in vendor assessments. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should evaluate whether the $100 cap is enforceable in jurisdictions where organizational users are located. Organizations with data loss or service disruption exposure should assess whether the cap adequately covers potential operational losses and consider whether Enterprise-tier terms provide more suitable protections.
Full institutional analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Monitor: same-day alerts on the platforms you choose. Analyst: full institutional analysis.
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.
This provision limits the maximum financial recovery available to any individual user for all claims related to the services to $100, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the harm alleged. The exclusion of consequential and indirect damages further narrows the categories of recoverable losses under the agreement.
Under this clause, the maximum amount a user can recover from Writer for any claim related to the services is $100, and categories including lost data, lost profits, and business interruption are excluded from recoverable damages. The document states that some jurisdictions do not permit these limitations, and users in those jurisdictions may retain additional rights.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Writer.