Adhesion contracts and the right of access to justice

Background of the case

An individual brought an ordinary civil action against a foreign company providing digital services. When answering the claim, the company invoked a clause of submission to foreign jurisdiction contained in the "terms and conditions" accepted electronically by the user, requesting the declinatory jurisdiction. Both the Civil Chamber and the Collegiate Court ruled that the extension of jurisdiction in favour of a foreign court was appropriate. Nevertheless, the complainant filed a direct amparo in review before the Supreme Court.

Legal criteria

The First Chamber ruled that this type of clause, being part of an adhesion contract -where the user has no real bargaining power- violates the human right of effective access to justice provided for in article 17 of the Constitution and the principle of procedural equality between the parties. This is aggravated when such clauses oblige the user to go to foreign courts, regardless of where the user is located or where the services have been provided.

Justification and effects

The High Court underlined that, although articles 149 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Mexico City allow for the extension of territorial jurisdiction, such extension should only be valid when it is in the mutual interest of the parties. In digital adhesion contracts, the acceptance of terms and conditions by the mere use of the website does not represent free and informed consent, especially when the costs of litigating abroad are prohibitive for the consumer.

This case law was adopted in private session on 28 May 2025 and published with binding effect from Monday 9 June 2025, in accordance with the ninth point of the Plenary General Agreement 1/2021.