Hi, I'm the ToS Watchdog! My job is to sniff out the unfair clauses hiding in Terms of Service agreements. Most people click "I agree" without reading thousands of words of legal jargon. That's where I come in—I read every word, flag the gotchas, and give you a simple score so you know what you're getting into before you sign up.
Overview
The Consumer Fairness Index is a 0-100 scoring system designed to help consumers and businesses understand how favorable (or unfavorable) a company's Terms of Service are. Higher scores indicate more balanced, consumer-friendly terms.
Reviews are prepared using a standardized methodology that evaluates each ToS against the criteria below. Every score can be traced back to specific ToS language with section citations.
The Six Scoring Categories
Each ToS is evaluated across six categories, weighted by their real-world impact on users:
Fund & Account Control 25% weight
The most heavily weighted category because it directly affects your money and access to the service. A platform can freeze your funds, hold reserves, or terminate your account—and this category measures how much protection you have.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- Fund holds capped at specific timeframe (e.g., "max 180 days")
- Clear criteria for when reserves can be held
- Written notice required before termination
- Formal appeal process with timeline
- Interest paid on held funds
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- "Indefinite" or "as long as we determine necessary" holds
- Termination "for any reason or no reason"
- No appeal process or "decisions are final"
- Reserves with no maximum cap
- Immediate account freezes without notice
🚨 Common Gotcha: "Rolling Reserves"
Many payment processors reserve 5-10% of your transactions for 90-180 days. This is standard. But watch for language like "we may hold reserves indefinitely" or "in our sole discretion"—this means there's no cap and funds could be held for years during disputes.
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Square's Payment Terms Section 13 caps fund holds at 180 days maximum—a concrete limit that protects merchants while still allowing the platform to manage risk.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates how much control the platform has over your funds and account access—specifically, whether they can hold your money indefinitely, terminate without cause, and whether you have any recourse when they do.
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would require: (1) fund holds capped at a specific number of days (ideally 30-90); (2) termination only "for cause" with written explanation; (3) formal appeal process with guaranteed response timeline; (4) interest paid on held funds; (5) immediate release of undisputed funds upon account closure.
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): Platform like early-stage crypto exchanges with clauses stating "funds may be held indefinitely pending compliance review" combined with "account may be terminated at any time for any reason without notice" and "all decisions are final and not subject to appeal."
Near 100/100 (Best): Theoretically, a platform with holds capped at 30 days, termination only for documented ToS violations, mandatory appeal process, and interest on reserves. No major payment processor currently scores above 70 in this category.
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
Holds capped ≤90 days; "for cause" termination only; binding appeal process; interest on reserves; 7-day release of undisputed funds
✗ Industry Reality (35-55 Average)
Indefinite holds "at our discretion"; termination "for any reason"; no appeal or "decisions final"; 90-180 day post-closure holds
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
When reviewing any platform's ToS, search for specific numbers: "X days," "X%," "within X hours." Vague language like "reasonable time," "as determined necessary," or "in our sole discretion" should trigger score deductions. The difference between a 35 and 65 in this category often comes down to whether the platform commits to specific limits.
Dispute Resolution 20% weight
How disputes between you and the company are resolved. This category determines whether you can sue, join a class action, or are forced into private arbitration that often favors repeat-player corporations.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- Right to sue in court preserved
- Class action rights retained
- Arbitration opt-out within 30+ days
- Small claims court exception
- Company pays all arbitration fees
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- Mandatory binding arbitration with no opt-out
- Class action waiver with no exception
- User pays arbitration filing fees
- Venue in distant jurisdiction (e.g., "Delaware courts only")
- Short statute of limitations (e.g., "claims within 1 year")
🚨 Common Gotcha: "Informal Resolution First"
Many ToS require you to email the company and wait 30-60 days before any legal action. This sounds reasonable, but some platforms use it to run out statutes of limitation or gather evidence against you. Watch for language like "you must attempt informal resolution for 60 days before initiating arbitration".
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Kraken's Terms of Service allow users to opt out of arbitration within 30 days, preserve small claims court rights, and clearly state that Kraken pays all arbitration fees for claims under $10,000.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates your legal options when something goes wrong. Can you sue? Join a class action? Or are you forced into binding arbitration with a company that uses the same arbitrator repeatedly (creating inherent bias toward the repeat player)?
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would preserve: (1) right to jury trial; (2) right to participate in class actions; (3) venue in user's home jurisdiction; (4) no shortened statute of limitations; (5) if arbitration exists, meaningful opt-out period (30+ days) and company pays all fees.
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): Mandatory binding arbitration with no opt-out, class action waiver, user pays filing fees, venue exclusively in platform's home state (e.g., "disputes shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration in Delaware"), plus 6-month or 1-year statute of limitations.
Near 100/100 (Best): Full court rights preserved, no class action waiver. Rare in consumer platforms—most B2B enterprise agreements come closer to this standard. Among consumer platforms, Kraken scores highest (~65) with its opt-out, fee-shifting, and small claims exception.
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
Jury trial preserved; class action rights retained; user's home venue; standard statute of limitations; if arbitration, full opt-out + company pays fees
✗ Industry Reality (30-50 Average)
Mandatory arbitration + class waiver standard; most offer 30-day opt-out but bury it; company-favorable venue; shortened limitations (1 year common)
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
Search for: "arbitration," "class action," "waive," "jury," and "opt-out." A platform that offers a 30-day opt-out in Section 14.5 scores significantly higher than one with no opt-out at all. Key question: if they freeze $50,000 of your funds, what can you actually do about it? If the answer is "file for arbitration in San Francisco at your own expense," that's a 30-40 score. If you can sue in your local small claims court, that's 55+.
Liability & Indemnification 20% weight
How risk and responsibility are allocated between you and the company. This is where platforms shift risk onto you—making you liable for things outside your control while limiting their own liability to nearly nothing.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- Liability cap tied to fees paid (e.g., "12 months of fees")
- Indemnification limited to your actions
- Carve-outs for gross negligence or willful misconduct
- Platform liable for security breaches on their end
- Clear warranty on core service functionality
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- "Total liability shall not exceed $100" or similar trivial caps
- Indemnification for third-party claims beyond your control
- "AS IS" disclaimer with no exceptions
- No liability for data breaches or system failures
- Blanket waiver of consequential damages
🚨 Common Gotcha: "Indemnify and Hold Harmless"
This clause makes YOU pay the company's legal bills if someone sues them because of your use. Fair when limited to your actual misconduct. Unfair when it includes "any third-party claims arising from your use"—which could include claims from the platform's own errors.
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Toptal's Talent Agreement includes explicit liability for Toptal's own negligence and caps liability at 12 months of payments—providing meaningful protection for users.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates how risk is distributed between you and the platform. When something goes wrong—data breach, service outage, third-party lawsuit—who pays? Platforms routinely limit their own liability to near-zero while requiring users to indemnify them against virtually everything.
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would require: (1) liability cap proportional to fees paid (6-12 months); (2) indemnification limited to user's own misconduct, not third-party claims; (3) carve-outs for platform's gross negligence and willful misconduct; (4) platform accepts liability for security breaches on their systems; (5) no blanket "AS IS" disclaimer for core services.
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): "Total liability shall not exceed $100" regardless of fees paid. Broad indemnification: "User shall indemnify Company for any claims arising from User's use of the Service"—which could include the platform's own negligence. Complete "AS IS" disclaimer with no exceptions. Example: some early-stage fintech ToS.
Near 100/100 (Best): Liability capped at 12 months of fees with minimum floor. Indemnification only for user's actual violations. Platform explicitly liable for data breaches from their security failures. Examples approaching this: enterprise SaaS agreements (rarely consumer platforms).
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
Cap at 12+ months fees with $10K+ floor; indemnification only for user's own violations; gross negligence carve-out; platform liable for their security breaches
✗ Industry Reality (40-55 Average)
Cap at 3-6 months or flat $100-500; broad "arising from use" indemnification; total "AS IS" disclaimer; no liability for outages or breaches
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
Search for: "liability," "indemnify," "hold harmless," "AS IS," and "damages." Key questions: (1) Is the liability cap tied to what you pay, or is it a trivial fixed amount? (2) Does indemnification require you to pay for any third-party claims or only those caused by your actual misconduct? A platform scoring 55+ typically has liability tied to fees paid. Below 40, expect flat caps under $500 and broad indemnification.
Transparency & Notice 15% weight
How clearly the company communicates changes and important information. This category catches platforms that change rules overnight, hide fees, or use deliberately vague language that lets them interpret terms however they want.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- 30+ days advance notice for ToS changes
- Email notification for material changes
- Right to terminate if you disagree with changes
- Fee schedule published and easy to find
- Clear list of prohibited activities with examples
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- "Changes effective immediately upon posting"
- No direct notification—"check website periodically"
- Continued use = acceptance of new terms
- Vague prohibited activities (e.g., "inappropriate content")
- Hidden fees or percentage-based charges not clearly disclosed
🚨 Common Gotcha: "By Continuing to Use Our Service..."
This phrase means the platform can change any term—including fee structures, arbitration clauses, or data policies—and your next login counts as agreement. Without email notification requirements, you might agree to drastically different terms without knowing.
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Kraken commits to 30 days advance email notice for material changes and allows users to close accounts to reject new terms—with a clear process for withdrawing funds during that period.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates how clearly the platform communicates its rules and changes. Can they change fees overnight? Add mandatory arbitration without telling you? Use vague "prohibited conduct" language to terminate accounts retroactively? Transparency is about protecting you from rule changes you never agreed to.
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would require: (1) 30+ days advance email notice for any material ToS changes; (2) right to reject changes and terminate with refund; (3) complete fee schedule published and easy to find; (4) specific list of prohibited activities with concrete examples; (5) clear, plain-English drafting (Flesch-Kincaid grade level under 12).
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): "Terms may be modified at any time without notice. Continued use constitutes acceptance." Combined with hidden fee schedules (percentage fees buried in FAQ pages) and vague prohibited conduct like "inappropriate use" or "activity we deem harmful."
Near 100/100 (Best): 30-day email notice with right to terminate; complete fee calculator on website; prohibited conduct with specific examples (e.g., "selling counterfeit goods means..."). No major consumer platform currently scores above 75 here—most rely on "continued use = acceptance."
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
30+ day email notice; right to reject changes + refund; public fee calculator; specific prohibited conduct list; plain-English drafting
✗ Industry Reality (45-60 Average)
"We may update Terms at any time"; notice by website posting only; fees require account login to view; vague "harmful activity" language
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
Search for: "modify," "change," "update," "notice," "continued use," and "prohibited." Key question: If they double your fees next month, how would you find out? "Email notice 30 days before" scores 70+. "Posted on our website" scores 40-55. "Effective immediately upon posting" scores below 30. Also check if prohibited conduct is specific enough to actually follow—or so vague it could mean anything.
Data & Privacy Rights 10% weight
How your personal and business data is handled. While weighted lower than financial categories, data rights matter—especially when platforms can share your transaction history, browsing patterns, or personal information with advertisers or affiliates.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- Clear data deletion upon account closure
- Data export in standard formats (CSV, JSON)
- No data sharing for advertising without consent
- GDPR/CCPA compliance explicitly stated
- Limits on how long data is retained
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- "We may share data with affiliates and partners" (broad)
- No data portability or export option
- "We retain data indefinitely"
- Cross-service data sharing across product lines
- Third-party tracking with no opt-out
🚨 Common Gotcha: "Anonymized and Aggregated Data"
Platforms often carve out exceptions for "anonymized" or "aggregated" data, which they can use and sell freely. The problem: research shows that "anonymized" data can often be re-identified with 99.98% accuracy when combined with other datasets.
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Proton (of ProtonMail) offers complete data export, automatic deletion of IP logs, and zero data sharing with advertisers—though as a financial platform category, this level of privacy is rare.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates how your personal and business data is collected, used, shared, and protected. Can they sell your transaction history to advertisers? Share your data across their corporate family? Keep your data forever after you close your account? Your data has value—this measures how much control you retain.
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would require: (1) data deletion upon account closure (not just "deactivation"); (2) data export in standard formats (CSV, JSON); (3) no data sharing for advertising without explicit opt-in; (4) no cross-service data sharing within corporate family; (5) clear data retention limits; (6) GDPR/CCPA rights extended to all users regardless of location.
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): "We may share your information with affiliates, partners, and third parties for marketing purposes." No data export option. Data retained "indefinitely" or "as long as necessary for business purposes." No deletion upon account closure—only "deactivation." Cross-service sharing across entire corporate family (e.g., PayPal sharing with Honey).
Near 100/100 (Best): True deletion upon request (not just deactivation). Full data export. No advertising data sharing. Explicit data retention limits. Proton-style privacy focus. For financial platforms, Kraken approaches this with better-than-average transparency, though still scores only ~60 due to regulatory data retention requirements.
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
True deletion within 30 days; full data export (CSV/JSON); no advertising sharing without opt-in; no cross-product sharing; defined retention limits
✗ Industry Reality (35-55 Average)
"Deactivation" instead of deletion; limited or no export; broad "affiliate" sharing; indefinite retention; cross-service profiling common
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
Search for: "share," "affiliate," "third party," "advertising," "delete," "retain," and "export." Key questions: (1) Can you get your data out? (2) Can you delete it? (3) Who else gets to see it? A platform scoring 60+ typically offers data export and responds to deletion requests. Below 40, expect broad "business partners" sharing and no real deletion option—just account "deactivation" while they keep your data.
Exit Rights 10% weight
How easy it is to leave the service with your money and data. Platform lock-in is a real problem—some services make it nearly impossible to export your customer relationships, transaction history, or even your own funds after closure.
✅ What Earns High Scores (70-100)
- Cancel anytime with no penalty fees
- Funds released within 30 days of closure
- Full data export in standard formats
- Pro-rata refunds for unused subscription periods
- No "zombie clauses" that survive termination indefinitely
❌ What Earns Low Scores (0-40)
- Early termination fees (especially annual plans)
- Funds held 90-180+ days after closure
- No export of customer contacts or history
- Non-circumvention clauses (can't work with clients directly)
- Surviving indemnification obligations
🚨 Common Gotcha: "Surviving Provisions"
Even after you close your account, certain ToS sections often "survive termination." Watch for "Sections 8, 12, and 15 shall survive any termination"—this typically includes indemnification (you still owe them legal fees) and non-disparagement (you can't leave negative reviews).
🌟 Best Practice in the Industry
Toptal allows freelancers to take client relationships outside the platform after 2 successful projects, with no ongoing non-circumvention restrictions—recognizing that talent earned those relationships.
💡 Conclusion (What This Category Measures)
This category evaluates how easy it is to leave the platform with your money, data, and relationships intact. Can you cancel anytime? Get your funds quickly? Export your customer list? Or are you locked in by early termination fees, 180-day fund holds, and non-circumvention clauses that prevent you from working with clients you met through the platform?
📜 Rule (The Ideal Standard)
A perfect 100/100 would require: (1) cancel anytime with no early termination fees; (2) funds released within 30 days of account closure; (3) full data export including customer contacts and transaction history; (4) pro-rata refunds for unused subscription periods; (5) no non-circumvention clauses restricting future relationships; (6) minimal surviving obligations (only legally required ones like tax records).
🌟 What a Perfect Clause Would Look Like
🔍 Analysis (How Real Platforms Compare)
Near 0/100 (Worst): Early termination fees equal to remaining contract term. Funds held 180+ days "pending chargebacks." No data export—customer contacts locked inside platform. "Non-circumvention for 24 months after last engagement" (Upwork). "Surviving provisions include Sections 7-15"—which includes indemnification and non-disparagement that last forever.
Near 100/100 (Best): Cancel anytime, funds within 2 weeks, full data export, no non-circumvention. Toptal approaches this for freelancers after 2 successful projects. For payment processors, Square's 180-day maximum hold (while long) is at least a defined limit, unlike Stripe's indefinite holds.
✓ 90-100 Score Would Require
No termination fees; funds within 30 days; full data/contact export; pro-rata refunds; no non-circumvention; minimal surviving clauses
✗ Industry Reality (30-50 Average)
Annual contract penalties; 90-180 day fund holds; no contact export; no refunds; 12-24 month non-circumvention; perpetual indemnification
🐕 Conclusion (What To Look For)
Search for: "termination," "cancellation," "refund," "non-circumvention," "non-solicitation," "surviving," and "export." Key questions: (1) Can you leave without paying a fee? (2) When do you get your money back? (3) Can you take your customer relationships with you? For freelance platforms especially, the 24-month non-circumvention clause common to Upwork and Fiverr is a major lock-in—scoring these platforms below 40 in this category. A platform scoring 60+ typically has no non-circumvention or limits it to 6 months maximum.
Grade Scale
Grades are based on the weighted average of all six categories. Here's what each grade really means for you as a user—and what to watch out for at each level.
| Grade | Score | What It Means | Real-World Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 80-100 | Consumer-friendly, balanced terms | Rare in most industries. These platforms treat users fairly, with clear limits on holds, real dispute options, and reasonable liability terms. |
| B | 60-79 | Above average, reasonable terms | Good balance of platform protection and user rights. May have mandatory arbitration but with meaningful opt-out or exceptions. |
| C | 40-59 | Industry standard with concerns | Most platforms fall here. Usable but read carefully. Contains common gotchas like indefinite fund holds or broad indemnification. |
| D | 20-39 | Below average, significant risks | Proceed with caution. May have harsh termination rights, minimal appeal processes, or one-sided liability terms. |
| F | 0-19 | Highly unfavorable, avoid if possible | Major red flags. Often seen in platforms with regulatory issues or those that have faced significant enforcement actions. |
💡 Important Context
Industry averages matter. A "C" grade payment processor might be standard for that industry, while a "C" grade freelance platform might be below average for its category. Each review page shows industry-specific comparisons so you can see how a platform stacks up against its direct competitors.
Scoring Process
Each category is scored on a 0-100 scale based on specific criteria. The final score is a weighted average:
Example Calculation: Stripe
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fund & Account Control | 35 | 25% | 8.75 |
| Dispute Resolution | 40 | 20% | 8.00 |
| Liability & Indemnification | 55 | 20% | 11.00 |
| Transparency & Notice | 60 | 15% | 9.00 |
| Data & Privacy Rights | 52 | 10% | 5.20 |
| Exit Rights | 40 | 10% | 4.00 |
| Total | 100% | 45.95 → 47 |
What I Don't Score
The Consumer Fairness Index focuses only on the legal terms in your agreement. A platform can have great features but terrible ToS—and vice versa. Here's what falls outside my scoring:
💻 Product Quality
Features, UI/UX, reliability, uptime. A platform can have an amazing product with predatory ToS.
💰 Pricing
Whether fees are competitive. I care about how fees are disclosed and changed, not the amounts.
📞 Customer Support
Response times, quality of help. Though I do note if ToS explicitly limit support availability.
⭐ Reputation
Market perception, user reviews, brand image. A beloved brand can still have unfair legal terms.
💡 Why This Matters
Many review sites mix product quality with legal terms. A payment processor might earn 5 stars for its checkout experience while burying an arbitration clause that prevents you from suing if they freeze $100,000 of your funds. My reviews focus exclusively on what happens when things go wrong—because that's when ToS actually matter.
Version Tracking
Companies update their Terms of Service regularly—sometimes to improve user rights, often to expand their own protections. Every review includes:
Review Date
When the ToS was analyzed
ToS Version
Effective date of document
Score History
Changes over time
Material Changes
What got better or worse
How to Use These Reviews
My reviews are designed to help you make informed decisions. Here's how to get the most out of them:
- Compare within categories: A score of 50 means different things for payment processors vs. freelance platforms. Always compare against industry peers shown in each review.
- Read the "Why this score" sections: The overall grade is just a starting point. The category breakdowns explain exactly which clauses are good or bad and cite specific ToS sections.
- Check the gotchas: Each review highlights the most problematic clauses—the ones most likely to affect you if something goes wrong.
- Consider your risk tolerance: A freelancer processing $500/month has different risk exposure than a business processing $500,000. Lower scores matter more at higher volumes.
- Verify current terms: ToS change. If making a significant decision, always verify that the terms haven't been updated since my review date.
⚠ Important Disclaimer
ToS Watchdog scores are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Scores reflect my interpretation of contract terms at the time of review. Terms of Service change frequently. Always read the current version before signing up for any service.
If you need legal advice about a specific ToS or contract dispute, schedule a consultation.
Industry-Specific Weights
While all reviews use the same six categories, the relative importance varies by industry. Here's why:
| Industry | Highest Weight | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| 💳 Payment Processors | Fund Control (30%) | Holds can bankrupt businesses; reserve policies are critical |
| 🪙 Crypto Exchanges | Fund Control (35%) | Assets can be frozen during regulatory actions; withdrawal limits matter |
| 💼 Freelance Platforms | Exit Rights (25%) | Non-circumvention clauses and fee structures trap users |
| 🏠 E-commerce | Liability (25%) | Seller liability for buyer claims; IP indemnification |
| 🎥 Streaming Services | Data Privacy (25%) | Viewing habits and personal preferences are valuable data |
What Fair ToS Should Look Like
Based on analyzing hundreds of Terms of Service, here's what I consider "gold standard" provisions that every platform should include:
💰 Fund Protection
Maximum hold period stated in days, not "indefinite." Interest paid on reserves. Clear criteria for when holds are applied.
⚖ Dispute Fairness
30-day arbitration opt-out. Small claims court preserved. Company pays all arbitration fees for claims under $10K.
🛡 Balanced Liability
Liability cap tied to fees paid (6-12 months). Indemnification limited to user's actual misconduct, not third-party claims.
👁 Real Notice
30 days email notice for material changes. Right to terminate and receive refund if user disagrees with new terms.
🔒 Data Rights
Full data export in standard formats. Deletion upon request. No sharing with advertisers without explicit opt-in.
🚪 Clean Exit
Funds released within 30 days of closure. No early termination penalties. No surviving non-compete clauses.
🐕 The Watchdog's Goal
Every platform review is designed to push the industry toward fairer terms. When users understand what's in their ToS and choose platforms with better protections, it creates market pressure for improvement. That's the mission of ToS Watchdog—not just to inform, but to drive change.
Feedback & Corrections
I strive for accuracy but welcome corrections. If you believe I've misinterpreted a provision or missed an important clause:
- Identify the specific ToS section (e.g., "PayPal User Agreement Section 14.3")
- Explain why you believe the interpretation is incorrect
- Provide a link to the current ToS document
All corrections are reviewed and, if valid, incorporated into the next review update with credit given.