ARTICLE
16 June 2025

SCJN Restricts Jurisdiction Clauses In Digital Platform T&C

VT
Vazquez Tercero & Zepeda

Contributor

Vázquez Tercero & Zepeda (VTZ) is a leading Mexican law firm specialized in international trade and customs. With over 50 years of experience, our firm offers comprehensive advice on complex legal matters, helping companies navigate domestic and international challenges with tailor-made solutions.
On June 26, 2024, Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) issued a landmark decision in Amparo Directo en Revisión 5069/2023, setting an important precedent for digital platforms...
Mexico Corporate/Commercial Law

On June 26, 2024, Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) issued a landmark decision in Amparo Directo en Revisión 5069/2023, setting an important precedent for digital platforms providing services to Mexican users, especially those operating remotely and under adhesion contracts. In this case, the Court reviewed a jurisdiction clause embedded in the Terms and Conditions of a Spain-based digital service provider and ruled that it was invalid as it obstructed the user's constitutional right to access justice.

The case: unilateral foreign jurisdiction clause

The case involved a Mexican user engaged in a dispute with a European service provider of wedding services. The website's Terms and Conditions, accepted via clickwrap, specified that all disputes would be subject exclusively to the courts of Spain. However, the relationship was clearly asymmetrical—the user had no real opportunity to negotiate or modify the jurisdiction clause.

A District Judge and the Circuit Court upheld the clause, validating the express submission to Spanish courts. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding the clause violated the constitutional right to access justice (Article 17) and the principle of procedural equality between parties.

The Court: submission is not waiver

The SCJN reaffirmed that access to justice cannot be restricted by contract clauses that effectively prevent one party from seeking redress. This is particularly true for adhesion contracts, where users lack real bargaining power.

The Court analyzed the context of online contracts, recognizing that digital transactions often replicate structural inequalities. Referencing international principles (UNIDROIT, OECD, and UN guidelines on e-commerce and consumer protection), the Court found the clause:

  • Lacked sufficient objective connection to the chosen forum (Spain).
  • Imposed a disproportionate burden on the user, requiring litigation in a foreign country under a different legal system.
  • Was not based on informed, negotiated consent but rather automatic clickwrap acceptance.

Accordingly, the Court declared the jurisdiction clause invalid and unconstitutional.

Emerging precedent: stronger protection in digital contracts

This ruling extends prior judicial standards—previously applied to banking adhesion contracts—to digital commerce and platform services.

The resulting jurisprudence, carries significant persuasive authority:

The First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice rules that express submission clauses in favor of foreign courts, stipulated in the "terms and conditions" of adhesion contracts used by foreign companies providing services in Mexico through websites, violate users' right of access to justice when they exclusively extend jurisdiction so that users must litigate in another country to resolve disputes between the parties.

This means that technology companies, e-commerce platforms, fintech firms, mobile apps, global marketplaces, and any digital service provider operating in Mexico must urgently review their Terms and Conditions and reconsider any foreign jurisdiction clauses that might block Mexican court access.

Practical implications: what platforms should do:

  1. Audit your Terms and Conditions
  2. Establish a reasonable territorial link
  3. Engage local counsel in Mexico
  4. Consider valid alternative mechanisms (e.g., arbitration)

What happens if platforms fail to adapt?

  • Clauses may be declared null in Mexican courts.
  • Service providers may be required to litigate locally despite contract terms.
  • Legal and reputational risks may increase significantly.
  • Contractual practices may be challenged as abusive or unconstitutional.

Conclusion

This SCJN ruling strengthens judicial protection for Mexican digital users and sends a clear message: online contract acceptance does not justify abusive clauses or implicit waiver of fundamental rights.

Digital platforms must adapt to this legal standard to reduce exposure and ensure compliant operations in Mexico. Having qualified Mexican counsel is no longer optional—it's essential.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More