Meta
· Llama Community License Agreement
The governing law designation determines which state's statutory and common law provisions apply to contract interpretation, performance obligations, and dispute resolution. Excluding the UN Convention ensures uniform domestic law governs rather than international commercial law principles that might otherwise apply to cross-border transactions.
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.
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.
TikTok
· TikTok Terms of Service
The clause specifies the legal framework and forum for dispute resolution when court proceedings occur. It centralizes venue in a single California county, which defines the procedural and jurisdictional parameters for non-arbitrated litigation.
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 disputes would be resolved and which state's statutes and case law apply to questions about the agreement's meaning and enforceability.
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 which courts have authority to hear litigation.
The clause establishes jurisdictional applicability of the agreement and creates a framework for territorial differentiation of contractual terms. This determines which version of the service terms governs the user-company relationship based on geographic location.
This provision establishes California law as the governing framework for interpreting the agreement and designates San Francisco County as the exclusive venue for any non-arbitrated proceedings, which may create logistical and cost considerations for customers located outside California.
Users outside California are required to litigate non-arbitration disputes in San Francisco federal or state courts, which may create practical barriers to pursuing claims in-person.
Ancestry
· Ancestry Terms and Conditions
This provision establishes Utah law as the governing framework for all disputes arising under the agreement, which may affect the consumer protections available to users in other states or countries where stronger consumer protection laws apply.
Delaware choice-of-law provisions may affect which consumer protections are available to users, particularly in states with stronger consumer protection statutes than Delaware, and may require users to litigate in a distant state.
If you live outside California, you would need to litigate in San Francisco, which creates a practical barrier for non-California users seeking court-based remedies.
The agreement requires that legal disputes be resolved in Santa Clara County, California, which may be geographically and financially impractical for international or non-California-based licensees.
The choice of California law affects which consumer protection statutes and procedural rules apply to disputes, and may be subject to challenge by consumers in jurisdictions whose local law provides stronger protections.
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 California choice-of-law provision for local consumers.
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 banking customers.
This provision designates California law and San Mateo County courts as the exclusive forum for any permitted litigation, which operationally limits users outside California who seek court-based remedies to the extent that mandatory arbitration does not apply.
Airbnb
· Airbnb Terms of Service
If you are a US user outside California who needs to litigate a dispute against Airbnb that falls outside arbitration, you are contractually required to do so in San Francisco, which creates a practical barrier for most users.
This clause means that if you are not subject to the arbitration provision (for example, as an EU or UK consumer), you would generally need to pursue claims in New York courts under New York law, which may be geographically and financially impractical for international users.
Wyze
· Wyze Terms of Service
Washington State law governs your rights under this agreement even if you live in a state with stronger consumer protections, which may affect what remedies are available to you.
If you live outside Washington State, this clause requires you to litigate in a distant jurisdiction, which can be a practical barrier to pursuing claims and means your home state's consumer protections may not apply.
A New York governing law and venue clause means that if you have a dispute that does end up in court (for example, outside the scope of arbitration), you may need to litigate in New York regardless of where you live, which can be a practical barrier to pursuing claims.
The choice of California law may affect which consumer protections and legal standards apply to your relationship with Glassdoor, particularly for users in other US states or outside the US.
This provision establishes that California substantive law governs all disputes and that non-arbitrated claims must be brought in San Francisco County courts. For users located outside California, this may create a practical barrier to pursuing litigation-based remedies.
This means that if you have a dispute with Microsoft that proceeds in court rather than arbitration, you would generally need to litigate in Washington State, which may be impractical for users outside that area, and Washington State law would govern the outcome.
This clause requires US users to litigate disputes in Washington State courts, which may be impractical for users in other states and effectively limits access to legal recourse for many consumers.
For non-US users, especially in the EU or UK, local consumer law may provide protections beyond what California law offers, and knowing this gives you the ability to invoke local rights even when the agreement points to California law.
Figma
· Figma Terms of Service
If you need to take a dispute to court (outside of arbitration), you must do so in San Francisco, California, under California law, which may be impractical and costly for users located elsewhere in the US or internationally.
Non-California users who need to pursue a dispute in court would need to do so under California law and in California courts, which may be practically inaccessible and costly for most individuals.
This provision designates Georgia courts as the exclusive venue for non-arbitrable disputes, which may require users outside Georgia to litigate in a distant forum and limits the applicability of more consumer-protective state laws that might otherwise apply to users in their home jurisdictions.