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.
Section 27 of the agreement requires that certain claims between users and Zoom be resolved through individual arbitration rather than court proceedings, and prohibits users from bringing class-action claims against Zoom.
This analysis describes what Zoom'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 requires disputes to proceed through individual arbitration, which precludes users from pursuing claims in court as a class or group. The enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers varies by jurisdiction and may be limited by applicable consumer protection law, particularly in the EU, UK, and certain US states.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of the class action waiver and mandatory arbitration clause depends on jurisdiction, user classification as consumer or business, and whether a governing MSA supersedes these Terms.
Under this clause, users are required to resolve certain disputes with Zoom through individual arbitration rather than court litigation, and the agreement states users will not bring class-action claims against Zoom. The agreement notes that changes to the Terms of Service do not create a renewed opportunity to opt out of arbitration, indicating that an initial opt-out window applies.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Individual Arbitration and Class Action Waiver and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Zoom has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY, AS IT PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS: (i) in Section 27, that you and Zoom will arbitrate certain claims instead of going to court and that you will not bring class-action claims against ZoomExcerpt from Zoom's Terms of Service
1. REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers are subject to scrutiny under the FTC Act and state consumer protection statutes. The CFPB has previously examined arbitration clause enforceability in consumer financial contexts. In the EU and UK, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts may be unenforceable under Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair contract terms, and applicable law in those jurisdictions may limit how this provision applies in practice. 2. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High. The class action waiver significantly limits the collective dispute resolution mechanisms available to users, which has operational implications for enterprise buyers negotiating indemnification and dispute resolution terms. The carve-out that changes to the Terms do not create a renewed opt-out opportunity is operationally significant for compliance teams monitoring agreement amendments. 3. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU and UK consumer users face the highest exposure to unenforceability arguments under consumer protection law. California courts have in some cases limited the scope of arbitration clauses under state law. Illinois and other states with specific consumer protection statutes may also limit enforceability. 4. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Enterprise buyers negotiating Master Subscription Agreements should confirm whether the arbitration clause in the base Terms of Service is superseded by the MSA, as the agreement states the MSA governs in place of these Terms when executed. B2B procurement teams should treat the arbitration and class action waiver provisions as negotiable points in MSA discussions. 5. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should review whether their organization's use of Zoom falls under a governing MSA, which would supersede these Terms, or whether the base Terms of Service arbitration clause applies. Consumer-facing organizations deploying Zoom for customer interactions should assess whether the arbitration clause creates any downstream liability or disclosure obligations.
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 requires disputes to proceed through individual arbitration, which precludes users from pursuing claims in court as a class or group. The enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers varies by jurisdiction and may be limited by applicable consumer protection law, particularly in the EU, UK, and certain US states.
Under this clause, users are required to resolve certain disputes with Zoom through individual arbitration rather than court litigation, and the agreement states users will not bring class-action claims against Zoom. The agreement notes that changes to the Terms of Service do not create a renewed opportunity to opt out of arbitration, indicating that an initial opt-out window applies.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Zoom.