Found in 267 of 352 platforms tracked (76% adoption) · 1500 provisions
A one-year limitation period is shorter than the default statutory limitation periods in many jurisdictions, potentially barring claims that would otherwise be timely under applicable law.
Fixing the governing law as Israeli law determines which country's legal standards, rights, and remedies apply to any dispute arising under the Agreement.
Specifying Texas law as the governing law determines which state's legal rules apply to any dispute about the Terms, which may differ from the user's home state law.
Users are required to litigate all disputes in a specific location, which may impose practical and financial burdens on users who do not reside in or near King County, Washington.
Users are bound to resolve privacy disputes under Washington state law and the terms of Amazon's Conditions of Use, which include limitations on damages and dispute resolution procedures.
Users are contractually required to litigate any disputes in San Francisco courts, which may impose geographic and financial burdens on users located elsewhere.
Users are contractually bound to litigate any dispute with Anthropic about the Terms only in San Francisco courts, which may impose a significant geographic and financial burden on users located else…
An exclusive jurisdiction clause requires users to litigate in a specific location regardless of where they are based, which may create significant practical and financial barriers to pursuing a clai…
The applicable governing law determines which jurisdiction's legal rules interpret the Agreement and govern any disputes, directly affecting the customer's legal rights and remedies.
Because disputes are governed by Amazon.com's Conditions of Use, the forum, governing law, and liability limits that apply to users are set by a separate document outside Audible's own Terms.
Exclusive jurisdiction in Paris under French law means users outside France must litigate in a foreign jurisdiction and under a foreign legal system.
Users are bound to resolve all disputes under a specific legal framework — U.S. federal law and Massachusetts law — regardless of where the user is located.
Users who litigate non-arbitrable disputes must do so under California law in a specific California federal district, regardless of where the user is located.
The act of using the Services or submitting any information is treated as unambiguous consent to cross-border data handling, which may subject data to different legal protections than the user's home…
Users outside the United States are bound by California and U.S. law rather than the laws of their own country or region, which may limit or alter their legal rights.
This clause creates a hierarchy where external Data Privacy Framework obligations supersede Copy.ai's own policy language in the event of any inconsistency.
An exclusive forum requirement obligates users to litigate in a specific geographic location, which may create practical and financial barriers to pursuing claims.
Exclusive jurisdiction in San Francisco means users cannot litigate in their local courts and must appear or be represented in a specific geographic forum.
The requirement for a legal basis before collection is a substantive legal constraint on Databricks' data collection practices, and the applicable basis varies by situation rather than being fixed.
Users permanently give up the right to have any claim decided by a jury, which alters the adjudicative process for all disputes.
Users are required to litigate all disputes in a specific geographic forum, regardless of where they are located, limiting their practical ability to pursue claims.
The act of providing personal information is treated as consent to U.S.-based data processing, which may have implications for users located outside the United States where different legal protection…
Users outside California—including outside the United States—cannot rely on their local laws to interpret or challenge these Terms; California law applies exclusively.
Users who need to litigate non-arbitrable claims against Eventbrite must do so in San Francisco regardless of where they are located, which may impose significant practical burdens.
This clause is consequential because it forces users outside New York to litigate in a distant jurisdiction, which can impose significant practical and financial burdens.
This clause is consequential because it fixes the substantive law applicable to all disputes regardless of where the user is located, which may affect the rights available to the user.
This hierarchy clause means that the Privacy Statement's terms are subordinate to the DPF Principles, so the operative data-protection rules in a conflict scenario are those of the DPF framework rath…
Specifying California law without conflicts-of-laws principles means California substantive law applies regardless of where the Customer is located or where a dispute arises.
Excluding conflict of laws provisions means California law applies regardless of where the user is located, preventing users from invoking the law of their own jurisdiction.
GOAT's certification commits it to a defined set of data privacy principles for EU-sourced personal data, establishing a baseline of accountability to a U.S. government body.
Users covered by EU-U.S. or Swiss-U.S. data protection frameworks receive protections established by those Principles even if GitHub's privacy statement would otherwise provide less.
Users in any jurisdiction are bound by California law for any dispute with Google, which may limit the legal protections available under their local law.
Legal compliance responsibility is placed entirely on the advertiser for every jurisdiction where their ads appear, and this obligation exists independently of Google's own policy requirements.
The clause makes local legal compliance a contractual obligation for every targeted geography, meaning an advertiser cannot rely solely on Google Ads policy compliance and must independently assess t…
The clause introduces a conditional, location-specific legal compliance obligation qualified by 'may need to', meaning AVMSD compliance is not stated as an absolute requirement but as a potential obl…
Exclusive California and federal governing law determines which legal standards apply to any dispute, potentially disadvantaging users located outside California.
Groq transfers the entire legal compliance burden—including emerging and jurisdiction-specific AI regulation—to the Customer, meaning Groq does not warrant that use of its services satisfies any part…
Requiring California law to govern all claims limits users' ability to rely on more favorable laws of their home jurisdiction.
Exclusive venue in Santa Clara County means users must litigate in a specific California location regardless of where they are based, and cannot challenge that venue.
Users who do not provide timely notice of a claim within one year permanently lose the ability to pursue that claim against Grubhub.
This clause determines the controlling authority when Heap's stated privacy practices diverge from the Data Privacy Framework Principles, meaning the Principles set the effective floor for data handl…
Exclusive jurisdiction in a single geographic location may impose significant practical burdens on users who do not reside near those courts when seeking legal remedies.
This confirms a user right under the Digital Services Act to seek resolution outside of court through a certified body, independent of any internal complaints process.
The 14-business-day window determines whether removed content is restored; if the claimant does not act within that period, the process moves forward without further legal challenge.
This shortens the period in which users may pursue legal claims, potentially cutting off rights before applicable statutory limitations periods would otherwise expire.
UK and EEA users have a legally grounded limit on LangChain's data collection and processing, requiring a recognized legal basis before any processing may occur.
Exclusive venue in Montgomery County, Ohio means users outside that jurisdiction must litigate there, creating a significant practical and financial barrier to pursuing claims.
EEA and UK users are afforded the protection that every instance of Loom's data collection and processing must rest on a recognized legal basis, a requirement that does not expressly apply under this…
Standard Contractual Clauses are the stated legal mechanism Luma AI relies on to legitimise cross-border transfers of personal information from the EEA and UK, which determines the level of protectio…
Storage of Personal Information in the United States subjects it to U.S. law and may affect the privacy rights and protections available to users located in other jurisdictions.
Miro's liability continues when it transfers Personal Data onward to third parties under the DPF frameworks, meaning users retain a Miro-backed accountability chain for those transfers.
The DPF Principles act as a ceiling on Miro's privacy policy, meaning users covered by those frameworks receive at minimum the protections the Principles require, regardless of what the privacy polic…
Incorporating Module 4 SCCs by acceptance of the DPA provides the legal mechanism for cross-border data transfers where Mistral AI acts as Processor, without requiring a separate agreement for each t…
This hierarchy means that users covered by the DPF frameworks receive the protections established by those Principles even if Neon's own policy language would otherwise provide less.
This certification is the legal basis Notion uses for transferring personal data from the EU to the United States in compliance with applicable data protection requirements.
Users are contractually bound to litigate disputes only in San Francisco courts, regardless of where they are located.
OpenAI commits to using only legally valid mechanisms for international data transfers, which provides a baseline legal protection for transferred Personal Data.
This clause signals that OpenAI is positioning its existing safety and security practices against a specific emerging legal standard, which may indicate the scope of its compliance posture.
This clause signals that OpenAI is positioning its existing safety and security practices against an EU-level emerging legal standard, indicating the geographic scope of its compliance posture.
Standard Contractual Clauses are the stated legal basis for intra-affiliate data transfers, which determines the framework governing data protection obligations when data moves between OpenAI's relat…
Users in all locations are subject to New York law for any Privacy Policy dispute or dispute arising from purchase, registration, or use of OpenRouter products or Services, which may affect their ava…
New York law governs any dispute arising from the Terms or Service use, meaning users' legal rights and remedies are determined by New York's legal framework regardless of where the user is located.
Governing law determines which state's legal standards apply to any dispute, and the exclusion of conflict of law rules prevents courts from applying the law of a different state.
An exclusive forum clause requires users to litigate in San Francisco regardless of where they are located, which can be a practical barrier to pursuing claims.
Cross-border data transfers may move personal data to jurisdictions with different or weaker privacy protections than a user's home country, and this clause treats the act of data submission as conse…
Cross-border data transfers may subject personal data to legal regimes with different privacy protections than the user's home country, and this clause frames submission of data as constituting that …
When a conflict exists, the DPF Principles—not Perplexity AI's own privacy policy—set the controlling standard, which limits Perplexity AI's ability to use its own policy terms to override DPF obliga…
An exclusive venue clause eliminates the reader's ability to bring site-related disputes in any other location, potentially imposing geographic and cost burdens.
The disclosure establishes the legal and operational framework for margin account relationships by identifying the specific entity or entities with whom the user contracts. This structural clarity de…
The provision ensures operational consistency in margin lending practices and regulatory compliance across multiple legal entities within the Robinhood corporate group. This consolidates governance o…
The choice of forum is exclusively Rumble's to make between two options, meaning a user cannot independently select a US federal court and must litigate in Toronto unless Rumble elects otherwise.
Users in other states must litigate in New Jersey under Delaware law, which may create practical and financial barriers to pursuing claims against RunPod.
This disclosure signals to European users that transfers of their personal information to the US occur without the baseline protection that an adequacy decision would provide under the GDPR.
This clause confirms a formal regulatory escalation path for EEA and UK individuals, giving them recourse beyond Salesforce's own complaint-handling process.
Irrevocable and unconditional submission to Ontario courts means merchants outside Ontario—including elsewhere in Canada and the United States—must litigate in a foreign jurisdiction, raising the cos…
Users are contractually required to litigate claims against Signal only in specific California courts, regardless of where the user is located.
Regardless of where a user is located, California law will apply to any dispute with Signal, and conflict of law rules cannot override this.
This hierarchy means the DPF Principles set a binding floor that SimpliSafe's own Privacy Policy cannot override, affecting the actual protections available to users.
Subjecting Smartsheet's Data Privacy Framework commitments to FTC jurisdiction means a U.S. federal regulatory body has authority to investigate and enforce compliance, providing an external accounta…
A one-year limitation period is shorter than most statutory limitation periods and permanently extinguishes claims not filed in time, significantly restricting users' ability to seek legal remedies.
Even for disputes that fall outside the arbitration clause, users have no right to a jury trial, closing off that procedural option in court proceedings.
By irrevocably fixing jurisdiction, users who live outside New York are required to litigate in New York courts and cannot contest that venue choice.
This provision fixes the location and governing law for any litigation, which may impose significant practical burdens on users located outside Michigan who wish to pursue claims in court.
The applicable law and forum for disputes vary by Customer location, meaning legal rights and procedures differ depending on where the Customer is based.
The clause fixes a single mandatory forum in a foreign country for all privacy-related disputes, which may make pursuing a legal claim practically difficult or prohibitively expensive for users locat…
The clause fixes Israeli law as the exclusive governing law for all disputes of any sort, displacing any law the user's home jurisdiction might otherwise apply.
The clause mandates a single, exclusive foreign venue for all disputes, preventing users from pursuing claims in their local courts.
This hierarchy means the EU-U.S. DPF Principles set the effective floor for data protection obligations where they conflict with TaskRabbit's own policy terms.
This contractually shortened limitations period may be significantly shorter than the statutory period applicable under applicable law, reducing the window users have to pursue claims against Teachab…
Designating California law as governing law determines which legal standards and protections apply to any dispute, regardless of where the user is located.
The governing law selection determines which jurisdiction's legal rules apply to disputes, which affects how claims are interpreted and what remedies may be available.
DPF compliance establishes the legal basis for transferring personal data from the EU, UK, and Switzerland to the United States, and creates enforceable obligations for Twilio.
Regardless of where the user is located, California law and U.S. federal law control all disputes, which may disadvantage users whose home jurisdiction offers different or stronger protections.
Designating New York law as the governing law, regardless of where the user is located or where a dispute arises, determines which legal rules and standards apply to any claim.
Users outside Minnesota must litigate any dispute under Minnesota law in Minnesota courts, which may impose significant practical and financial burdens on non-Minnesota residents.
A one-year limitations period is shorter than many statutory limitations periods, potentially cutting off users' legal claims before they would otherwise expire under applicable law.
By using the services, a user provides authorization for cross-border data processing, which may mean their information is subject to the laws and protections of countries other than their own.
Fixing the governing law as Illinois regardless of where the user is located means the user's home state law does not apply in arbitration, which may affect the substantive rights and remedies availa…
Exclusive jurisdiction in Tel Aviv means users outside Israel must litigate in a foreign country, creating a significant practical barrier to pursuing legal claims against Waze.
Specifying California law as the governing standard determines which legal rules apply to disputes and excludes choice-of-law doctrines that might otherwise apply another jurisdiction's law.
This waiver eliminates the reader's ability to join with others in a class or collective legal action against Weights & Biases, which can significantly reduce the practical viability of pursuing smal…
The choice of New York governing law, excluding conflict of laws principles, determines which jurisdiction's substantive rules apply to disputes, potentially overriding protections available under th…
Users outside California are required to litigate in a specific distant jurisdiction, which may impose practical and financial burdens.
It establishes both a legal compliance commitment across global jurisdictions and independent third-party validation of Writer's security and privacy practices.
This establishes a hierarchy of authority in which the DPF Principles supersede Writer's own Privacy Policy, meaning users' rights under the DPF Principles cannot be reduced by Writer's policy langua…
This clause shortens the time window for users to bring claims well below what many statutory limitations periods would otherwise allow, and imposes permanent forfeiture if the deadline is missed.
Designating Delaware law as governing law determines which state's statutes and case law apply to any dispute arising under the Terms.
Zendesk derives express consent from the act of use or access alone, meaning no separate affirmative consent step is required for the described data processing.
Exclusive venue in a single jurisdiction means users outside Washington must litigate there regardless of where they are located, which can significantly increase the cost and difficulty of pursuing …
This hierarchy means that the DPF Principles set a floor of protection that ZipRecruiter's own policy language cannot override.
The choice of California law determines which legal standards and protections apply to disputes, which may differ from the user's home jurisdiction.
EEA, Swiss, and UK users have a defined contractual safeguard—standard contractual clauses—applied when their personal data is transferred internationally outside the EEA.
Users are contractually required to litigate in specific Texas courts, which may impose geographic and financial burdens on non-Texas users.
The use of 'generally' means standard contractual clauses are not guaranteed in every international transfer; other mechanisms may sometimes apply.
If there is any discrepancy between a translated version of Google Ads policies and the English version, the English version controls for enforcement purposes.
The provision establishes a jurisdictional segmentation of the agreement terms, ensuring that EU-based users are governed by terms specifically drafted to comply with EU legal requirements rather tha…
The governing law and venue selection establishes the procedural framework for how the agreement is interpreted and where disputes must be litigated, affecting which jurisdiction's substantive law ap…
If you ever needed to pursue a legal claim in court, you might be required to litigate in North Carolina rather than your home state, which can be practically difficult and expensive for most retail …
The clause functions as a precondition for Service eligibility by establishing dual requirements: contractual capacity and regulatory compliance. This framing ties Service access to both contract for…
The governing law clause establishes California as the controlling jurisdiction for US users, while acknowledging that mandatory consumer protection laws in other jurisdictions may override the Calif…
The selection of Delaware law establishes a uniform legal standard for interpreting the agreement's terms across all users, regardless of their location. This provision creates predictability in how …
The choice of Delaware law and exclusive Delaware jurisdiction creates a procedural framework for any non-arbitrated disputes, determining which substantive law applies to contract interpretation and…
The choice of California law as governing law may interact with California's robust consumer protection statutes, which in some circumstances provide additional rights to California residents and may…
Monitor emails you the same day a platform you choose changes these clauses.
A legal jurisdiction clause is a provision in a platform's terms of service or privacy policy governing legal jurisdiction-related rights, obligations, or restrictions.
ConductAtlas tracks 267 platforms with legal jurisdiction clauses - roughly 76% of platforms in the archive. 462 are classified as high severity.
Severity reflects the magnitude of rights waived, availability of opt-out, breadth of users affected, financial or legal exposure created, and the degree of discretion retained by the platform.