Provision Registry

402 classified provisions across 299 platforms — browse, filter, and compare.

Every clause classified by type, severity, and platform. Updated as policies change.

Start Compliance free trial Track specific clauses across platforms with provision-level alerts.
Filtering: Legal jurisdiction × Clear all
low Legal jurisdiction
Max · Max Terms of Use
Geographic segmentation allows Max to comply with regional licensing agreements, content distribution rights, and regulatory requirements that vary by jurisdiction. This mechanism enables Max to deliver service within the legal and contractual constraints applicable to each geographic market.
CA-P-001772 First tracked Apr 3, 2026 Last seen Apr 10, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Neon · Neon Terms of Service
Knowing which legal entity you are contracting with matters for determining which courts have jurisdiction over disputes, which laws apply, and which entity you would pursue in the event of a service failure or data incident.
CA-P-007731 First tracked May 9, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Google Ads · Google Ads Terms of Service
This provision establishes a hierarchy in which the Google Pay-specific terms supersede the general Google Terms of Service, and in which the English version of the terms governs over translations. Non-English-speaking users who rely on translated versions are bound by the English text in the event of a discrepancy.
CA-P-012117 First tracked May 20, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
McDonald's · McDonald's Terms of Use
Governing law clauses determine which state's legal protections apply to your relationship with McDonald's, which could affect your rights in a dispute if your home state offers stronger consumer protections.
CA-P-008847 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Nintendo · Nintendo Terms of Use
The governing law clause determines the substantive legal framework that will apply to interpretation of the agreement terms and resolution of disputes, establishing Washington law as the controlling authority rather than allowing selection of another state's legal system.
CA-P-000994 First tracked Apr 3, 2026 Last seen Apr 17, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Affirm · Affirm Terms of Service
California law will apply to your agreement with Affirm even if you are a resident of another state, which may affect what consumer protections apply to your account.
CA-P-009587 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Duolingo · Duolingo Terms of Service
For non-Pennsylvania users, this means any court proceeding (outside of arbitration) would require litigating in Pennsylvania, which is a practical barrier for most users and is not enforceable against consumers in all jurisdictions.
CA-P-009542 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Robinhood · Robinhood Customer Agreement
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 affect the enforceability of certain clauses for non-California customers.
CA-P-011338 First tracked May 12, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Medium · Medium Terms of Service
If you live outside California and have a dispute with Medium that is not resolved through arbitration, you may be required to litigate in California courts, which creates practical barriers for out-of-state users.
CA-P-007390 First tracked May 9, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Grubhub · Grubhub Terms of Use
Delaware law governs your rights under this agreement, which may differ from the consumer protection laws of your home state that might otherwise provide stronger protections.
CA-P-009188 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
ActiveCampaign · ActiveCampaign Terms of Service
The governing law and exclusive venue provisions require disputes to be litigated under Illinois law in Cook County courts, which may create logistical and financial barriers for customers located outside Illinois who seek to bring claims against ActiveCampaign.
CA-P-012243 First tracked May 20, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Duo Security · Duo Terms of Service
The exclusive venue clause means that if your organization has a dispute with Duo, you would need to litigate in Santa Clara County, California, regardless of where your organization is located, which creates a practical barrier to legal recourse for smaller organizations or those outside California.
CA-P-004878 First tracked May 7, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Perplexity AI · Perplexity API Terms of Service
This provision requires developers outside California to litigate disputes in San Francisco County courts, which may create geographic and logistical burdens for international or non-California-based developers. The governing law designation determines which jurisdiction's consumer, contract, and data protection law applies to interpretation of the agreement.
CA-P-013145 First tracked May 21, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Mixpanel · Mixpanel Terms of Use
Governing law and dispute forum provisions determine where and under what legal framework a business customer must pursue any claims against Mixpanel, which affects the practical cost and accessibility of dispute resolution.
CA-P-008842 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Pinecone · Pinecone Terms of Service
The terms reserve the right to revise the agreement and state that notification of substantial changes may be sent by email, meaning continued site use after changes are posted may constitute acceptance of revised terms.
CA-P-011857 First tracked May 12, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Amplitude · Amplitude Terms of Service
Businesses outside California, particularly international customers, must be prepared to litigate in San Francisco courts under California law, which may create practical and financial barriers to pursuing legal claims against Amplitude.
CA-P-005764 First tracked May 8, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Apple Pay · Apple Media Services Terms
The governing law clause determines whose courts and what legal standards apply if a dispute arises; for US users, California law and its consumer protection framework applies, while EU users retain home country protections even though Apple's standard choice-of-law favors California.
CA-P-008294 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
HubSpot · HubSpot Terms of Service
This provision establishes the forum and applicable law for dispute resolution, requiring EU/EEA/UK/Swiss customers to litigate in Ireland and US/Canadian customers in Massachusetts, which may create procedural and cost barriers for customers located in other jurisdictions.
CA-P-002972 First tracked Apr 18, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Revolut · Revolut Terms of Service
The clause creates a single authoritative text for dispute interpretation and compliance purposes, ensuring consistent application of contractual obligations across different language markets where Revolut operates.
CA-P-003643 First tracked Apr 27, 2026 Last seen Apr 27, 2026 Compare across platforms →
Yelp · Yelp Terms of Service
This provision establishes a single authoritative version of the contractual terms to prevent ambiguity in contract interpretation across multiple language versions. By designating English as the governing language, the provision creates a clear standard for dispute resolution and contract administration regardless of which translation a user may reference.
CA-P-001268 First tracked Apr 3, 2026 Last seen Apr 17, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Redfin · Redfin Terms of Use
The governing law for disputes is likely Washington State, which affects which consumer protection laws and legal standards apply to your relationship with Redfin.
CA-P-009019 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 20, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Comcast · Comcast Terms of Service
If a dispute is not resolved through arbitration, the agreement requires you to pursue it in courts located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which could be a practical barrier for subscribers located in other states.
CA-P-007978 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Teachable · Teachable Terms of Use
This provision requires that any court proceedings not resolved through arbitration be brought in New York courts under New York law, which may impose geographic and legal burden on users outside New York who seek judicial resolution of disputes.
CA-P-012260 First tracked May 20, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
ClickUp · ClickUp Terms of Use
If you are not based in California, this clause means you would need to litigate in San Francisco, which is practically burdensome and could deter legitimate legal claims from non-California users.
CA-P-005963 First tracked May 8, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Atlassian · Atlassian Cloud Terms
Non-US customers and customers based outside of New York should be aware that disputes not resolved through arbitration must be litigated in New York courts under New York law, which may impose logistical and cost burdens.
CA-P-005834 First tracked May 8, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Noom · Noom Terms of Service
New York governing law means consumer protections under your home state's laws may not apply, and pursuing litigation would require engaging with New York courts even if you live in another state or country.
CA-P-001842 First tracked Apr 3, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Dun & Bradstreet · D&B Terms of Use
Users outside New Jersey, including international users, are required to litigate in New Jersey under New Jersey law, which may create a practical barrier to pursuing legal claims against D&B.
CA-P-008416 First tracked May 10, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Jasper AI · Jasper Terms of Service
This provision establishes the legal framework and geographic venue applicable to any disputes that proceed outside arbitration, requiring non-Delaware users to litigate in Delaware courts.
CA-P-010254 First tracked May 11, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
T-Mobile · T-Mobile Terms and Conditions
Requiring disputes to be filed in Delaware courts creates a practical barrier for most customers, who would need to travel to or hire lawyers admitted in Delaware to pursue non-arbitrated claims.
CA-P-001693 First tracked Apr 3, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →
low Legal jurisdiction
Udemy · Udemy Terms of Use
If you live outside California and need to bring a non-arbitrable claim against Udemy, this clause requires you to litigate in California courts, which may be impractical and costly for users located elsewhere.
CA-P-005451 First tracked May 7, 2026 Last seen May 22, 2026 Compare across platforms →

Compliance Governance Intelligence

Monitor specific governance provisions across platforms.

Compliance includes provision-level monitoring, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.

Start free Start Compliance free trial