Users Say They Never Saw the Message, Despite Company’s Claims
Discord’s latest Terms of Service update continues to spark debate, not only for the content of the changes but also for how they were communicated. After our initial report highlighting concerns around forced acceptance, Discord reached out directly to clarify that users were notified in advance by email on August 29th, 2025, and that supporting articles were published on the company’s Help Center the same week.
According to Discord, this ensured all users were informed about the September 29th Terms of Service update. However, the community response paints a different picture.
Community Feedback Contradicts Official Messaging
In our follow-up outreach, we kindly asked an average of 200 Discord users about whether they received the August 29th email. Only four confirmed that they had seen it. The overwhelming majority said the first time they encountered the new Terms was when they were blocked by a forced acceptance prompt inside the app without the option to reject or to close down the popup.
This gap highlights a major issue: while Discord may have technically fulfilled its obligation to notify users, the effectiveness of that communication remains questionable. If emails end up buried in spam filters, hidden in promotions tabs, or overlooked due to poor visibility, the end result is the same — users feel blindsided. Some users for example only one of their emails to sign up, but never looking into their mailbox to ensure that all emails and news are filtered from their own private email address.
One of our users suggested: What about a nice little bar on the top of every server, like they do with other things such as gifts for nitro users, just to warn about a terms of service change would be much more effective then a email.
Discord’s Outreach and Verification
Discord’s email to our newsroom requested that we adjust language suggesting users had “no warning” about the policy changes. While we appreciate the clarification, it also raises an important point: outreach from large companies should be verifiable.
To avoid impersonation or phishing attempts, any future communication should include official verification methods — such as company domain signatures, reference numbers, or direct confirmation through Discord’s verified channels. This ensures trust not only for our reporting team but also for the broader community to ensure that they get the right news at their doorstep.
The Larger Story: Communication and Trust
The dispute over email notifications is part of a bigger picture surrounding Discord’s evolving relationship with its user base. The recent Terms of Service changes touched on key areas:
- Expanded descriptions of content rights and service use
- Updates to arbitration and dispute resolution
- Introduction of Orbs, Discord’s new virtual currency
- Stricter age verification in certain regions, including ID and selfie scans
While these changes are significant, the method of delivery matters just as much as the content itself. A policy update that isn’t clearly seen or understood by the majority of users undermines trust, even if the company insists proper notices were sent.
Moving Forward
Let me be clear, This story is not about making Discord look bad. It’s about presenting both sides fairly and asking important questions about communication, transparency, and accountability. Discord maintains that the emails went out. Most users maintain they never saw them.
The truth may lie in the middle — but what’s clear is that the way these updates are delivered matters. For a platform used daily by millions worldwide, ensuring effective communication isn’t just a courtesy — it’s a responsibility.
Open to Dialogue
We want to make clear that our goal is not to create conflict but to ensure transparency for our readers. If Discord would like to continue this conversation, we are open to a direct and constructive dialogue. We ask only that any future outreach be verifiable through official channels to guarantee authenticity and protect against impersonation attempts.
