Slack - www.slack.com


Contract Title Slack - USER
Contract Website www.slack.com
Contract Application Slack Web App & Phone App
Contract Type website with app
Contract Date 04/20/2018
TOS Website slack.com/terms-of-service/user
Total Rating 72.22

Total Page Count 17

Terms: 6 pages; Privacy Policy: 9 pages; Acceptable Use Policy: 2 pages


The Right to Privacy 2 out of 5

Privacy dated: 4/20/18 General info: meta data, logs, IP info, device info, cookies, de-identified info used for any purpose.

GOOD ASPECTS: Good use of bold face lettering throughout. Internationally recognized security certificates: ISO 27001 (information security management systems) and ISO 27018 (protecting personal data in the cloud). Good < 16 years old policy.

BAD ASPECTS: They have a total separate data protection policy that they link to. Their law enforcement disclosure includes "legal process" as a justification for releasing info. Not good. Should only be released with subpoena. There is extra protection for EU & Swiss residents--why not equal protection for all? Your information shared with corporate affiliates (unclear which ones). Doesn't clearly address account recovery and the cell phone porting problem.


The Right to Equal, Fair, & Reasonable Expression 4 out of 5

GOOD ASPECTS: They defer to the customer! Excellent. In other words, there are two users of slack. You, the end user, and also the organizations that create the slack group you are a part of. Slack smartly defers to the Slack group organizer to determine what is equal, fair, and reasonable expression. Even better, they explicitly state that they do not get involved unless the organizer does not! So basically, if you are a part of a Slack group, you are beholden to THAT company's TOS in terms of what you can and cannot say. Well done Slack--great use of the chain of command! Of course, however, you can't harass others and there is no unsolicited communication.

BAD ASPECTS: They also do not define 'harass' or 'unsolicited', which makes things very murky.


The Right to Control My Intellectual Property 3 out of 5

BAD ASPECTS: It seems that nothing is mentioned about IP. This is usually a good sign, but it's also odd that nothing is mentioned.

GOOD ASPECTS: It appears that it's up to the 'customer', i.e. the Slack group organizer, to establish their own IP policy.


The Right to Sue 1 out of 5

US & Irish laws (depending on where you are).

BAD ASPECTS: Very unclear where the venue is and what law is used, because it also references the TOS for 'customer'. You waive consumer law, which is odd, because many people using this may in fact be consumers. You full waive your right to a jury trial on p5, and even so, it's unclear. So only a bench trial? Really poorly written in terms of clarity for the regular person.

GOOD ASPECTS: I guess you can still sue, but just a bench trial?


The Right to Low-Cost Arbitration 0 out of 5

BAD ASPECTS: It appears your only option is to sue, and you can't have a jury trial. Very questionable, and it's the first time I have seen this in an agreement thus far rated. In other words, while not specifically waived, your right to arbitrate appears effectively to be waived.

GOOD ASPECTS: None.


The Right to Join a Class Action 5 out of 5

There does not appear to be any waiver.


The Right to No Hidden Terms or Fees 3 out of 5

GOOD ASPECTS: In general, no hidden fees and it's relatively clear what you are getting.

BAD ASPECTS: it's not immediately clear that there are two different TOS agreements: one for 'users' and one for 'customers'.


The Right to Fair Process & To Be Heard 2 out of 5

BAD ASPECTS: The Acceptable Use Policy should be part of the terms of service. There is still an arbitrary decision-making process in terms of who gets kicked off. No due process. No warning process. No opportunity to correct. No defense period. No fair and impartial decision making process.

GOOD ASPECTS: Acceptable Use Policy is very good (but see above). It seems only if you do something deliberate, repeated, or if you present a credible risk of harm to others can you violate the TOS, which is better than most. But it's still unclear and decisions seem arbitrary. It's possible they leave most of these decisions to the 'customer', but it should be much clearer. But better than most!


The Right to Appeal & The Right to Return 2 out of 5

BAD ASPECTS: Appeal process is missing. No second-chance, right to return policy.

GOOD ASPECTS: It seems much of this decision-making process is up to the 'customer', i.e. Slack doesn't make these decisions except in extreme circumstances.


The Right to Reasonable Terms 3 out of 5

GOOD ASPECTS: They offer examples of how the terms might play out under particular fact patters. This is a cool feature! More companies should do this! There's a great table of contents. It's cool how a user needs to abide by the customer's rules, and that the customer then must abide by Slack's rules.

BAD ASPECTS: You can't use the service for consumer purposes. What does that mean? The User terms are different than the Customer terms, and this isn't clear upfront, i.e. that there are two different TOS agreements. On p4, instead of severability of unlawful clauses, the "provision will be modified", but since it's a contract of adhesion, the who is to know the true intent of the original clause? Not good.


Historical Fairness 7.22 out of 10
Historical User Ratings 10.0 out of 10
Historical Lack of Lawsuits or Arbitrations 10.0 out of 10
Public Placement of TOS Fairness Score & Link 20.0 out of 20
Total Rating 72.22 out of 100
Additional Note

Email addresses: dpo@slack.com, legal@slack.com, feedback@slack.com, info@dataprotection.ie Separate Acceptable Use Policy dated 11/10/16. Note: This is the TOS for the 'user', i.e. an individual who uses Slack as part of a company. The 'customer', i.e. the person or group that creates that Slack group, has a SEPARATE terms of service.

Ways to improve

1. Reduce the number of pages and agreements. Shorter is better.
2. Fix your law enforcement disclosure policy.
3. Your fair expression policy is better than most, because you defer to the 'customer', but it could be even better.
4. If you don't have any stake in a user's IP, then make that clear 100%.
5. Allow users to sue or arbitrate in any venue close to their home cities.
6. Allow jury trials.
7. Merge agreements into one.
8. Create a more specific fair process and right to be heard
9. Create a right to appeal and right to return for users
10. There are a lot of confusing terms and undefined aspects. Please address.
11. Add your TOS rating and link to your TOS page as outlined in our guidelines. You currently are being given all 20 points.

Review Status Completed

First Name Rating Comment

Reviewed by the following attorneys and/or law students:


The reviews on this website are merely a public service. No reviews on this website are to be considered legal advice. Each review is merely one potential analysis. Check that the date of the agreement on a company's website matches the date of the version that we have reviewed. Remember that each 'Click to Agree' agreement is (in most jurisdictions) deemed to be a binding contract between you and the company. Therefore, before making any final decision on whether to sign any online agreement, if you are uncertain, please be sure to read the contract in full, and if you are still confused, consult a licensed attorney in your country or state. Use of this website does not in any way create any lawyer-client relationship anywhere in the world. Click here to read our full terms of service and privacy policy.


First Name Last Name Country Last updated
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/19/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/22/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/23/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/23/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/23/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/24/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/24/2018
Monroe Mann USA - NY 05/25/2018