Court Blocks Uber Crash Lawsuit After Couple's Daughter Agreed To Uber Eats TOS (npr.org) 110
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A New Jersey appeals court says a couple cannot sue Uber over a life-altering car accident because of the app's terms and conditions, even though they say it was their daughter who agreed to those terms while placing an Uber Eats order. John and Georgia McGinty -- a Mercer County couple both in their 50s -- filed a lawsuit against the ride-hailing company in February 2023, nearly a year after suffering "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages" when the Uber they were riding in crashed into another car, according to court filings. "There are physical scars, mental scars, and I don't think that they will ever really be able to go back to their full capacity that they were at before," says their attorney, Mike Shapiro.
Uber responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, which would require the parties to resolve their differences outside court instead -- ostensibly benefiting the company by lowering legal costs and keeping proceedings private. Uber argued that Georgia McGinty, a longtime customer of Uber Rides and Uber Eats, had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the company when she signed off on the language in the app's terms of use on three occasions over the years. The McGintys fought back, saying it was actually their daughter -- who was and remains a minor -- who had most recently agreed to the terms when she used Georgia's phone to order food on their behalf. A lower court initially sided with the couple, denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration in November 2023. Uber appealed the decision, and late last month, the appeals court ruled in its favor.
"We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable," the three-judge panel wrote in September. "We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order denying arbitration of the claims against Uber." Shapiro told NPR that the couple "100%" wants to keep pursuing their case and are mulling their options, including asking the trial court to reconsider it or potentially trying to bring it to the New Jersey Supreme Court. "Uber has just been extremely underhanded in their willingness to open the same cabinets that they're forcing the McGintys to open up and have to peek around in," Shapiro says. "It's unfortunate that that's the way that they're carrying on their business, because this is truly something that subjects millions and millions of Americans and people all over the world to a waiver of their hard-fought rights." "While the plaintiffs continue to tell the press that it was their daughter who ordered Uber Eats and accepted the Terms of Use, it's worth noting that in court they could only 'surmise' that that was the case but could not recall whether 'their daughter ordered food independently or if Georgia assisted,'" Uber said in a statement.
The report cites another recent case where Disney "tried to block a man's wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of his wife -- who died following an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney World restaurant -- because he had signed up for a trial of Disney+." After negative media coverage, the company backtracked on its push for arbitration.
Uber responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, which would require the parties to resolve their differences outside court instead -- ostensibly benefiting the company by lowering legal costs and keeping proceedings private. Uber argued that Georgia McGinty, a longtime customer of Uber Rides and Uber Eats, had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the company when she signed off on the language in the app's terms of use on three occasions over the years. The McGintys fought back, saying it was actually their daughter -- who was and remains a minor -- who had most recently agreed to the terms when she used Georgia's phone to order food on their behalf. A lower court initially sided with the couple, denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration in November 2023. Uber appealed the decision, and late last month, the appeals court ruled in its favor.
"We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable," the three-judge panel wrote in September. "We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order denying arbitration of the claims against Uber." Shapiro told NPR that the couple "100%" wants to keep pursuing their case and are mulling their options, including asking the trial court to reconsider it or potentially trying to bring it to the New Jersey Supreme Court. "Uber has just been extremely underhanded in their willingness to open the same cabinets that they're forcing the McGintys to open up and have to peek around in," Shapiro says. "It's unfortunate that that's the way that they're carrying on their business, because this is truly something that subjects millions and millions of Americans and people all over the world to a waiver of their hard-fought rights." "While the plaintiffs continue to tell the press that it was their daughter who ordered Uber Eats and accepted the Terms of Use, it's worth noting that in court they could only 'surmise' that that was the case but could not recall whether 'their daughter ordered food independently or if Georgia assisted,'" Uber said in a statement.
The report cites another recent case where Disney "tried to block a man's wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of his wife -- who died following an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney World restaurant -- because he had signed up for a trial of Disney+." After negative media coverage, the company backtracked on its push for arbitration.
Hopefully the arbitrator will be unhinged (Score:4, Funny)
"Yep, you owe the victims a trillion dollars and the CEO of Uber has to personally pay for a global broadcast on all TV networks of note and then for three hours dance around in Times Square singing I'm a Little Tea Pot after being tarred and feathered."
Re:Hopefully the arbitrator will be unhinged (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you never have to deal with an unhinged arbiter. Or an unhinged doctor, dentist, or other professional who could fuck your life up because they're not doing their job properly. Maybe they fuck up a company you don't like this time, but next time it might just be you. You may as well have wished a serial murder would skin the CEO alive. It could happen, but it might eventually be hide off your or my back as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Except their decisions are pretty much ironclad if both parties agree to arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. There's no appeal and generally nothing further any side can do once the decision has been made by the arbitrator. Which is why companies love it. Settles it quickly with low legal costs to them and they almost always split the baby.
Re:Hopefully the arbitrator will be unhinged (Score:5, Insightful)
If they rule against a corporation, they'll never get hired again. Arbiters are never independent. The entire system of arbitration is broken if it is agreed to in advance before the complaint occurs. It's find if after the fact both parties agree to arbitration, on a case-by-case basis. But a system that demands you pre-emptively give up your legal or constitutional rights, should obviously be considered illegal or unconstitutional. I am baffled that judges uphold this.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched a US cop-drama? Suspects and criminals happily sign away their rights. The judicial branch wants to keep that power, so saying it can be voided, is not acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
They sign away their rights after they're on trial. That is, for the purpose of that trial they waive their rights. They do not waive their rights several years in the past for potentially unknown alleged crimes in the future. That's what binding arbitration is - before you know if or why you might need the help of the courts, you waive your rights.
Now there are different levels of stupid here. First is being given a form, such as in a job interview, that says "I waive my right to sue this company for a
Re: (Score:3)
They do not waive their rights several years in the past for potentially unknown alleged crimes in the future
Exactly this. Here in the UK, you literally CANNOT waive your legal rights. Even if you sign a document saying "I absolutely promise 100% that I cannot take this company to court if anything bad happens" it means nothing, as taking court action is an unalienable right.
You Americans talk a lot about this "constitution" thing. Surely there's something in there that confirms a similar principle?
Re: (Score:2)
The US courts decided several years ago, that click-wrap was binding: In effect, declaring civil contracts carried no implied terms or responsibilities. If it's not in writing, the consumer/employee/victim can't do it.
Since, the phone legally belongs to an adult (a distinction that miraculously disappears when police seize the phone), the adult is responsible for the choices of the minor.
The T&C from Uber explicitly claims "all disputes": The family was using an Uber service at the time. It is c
Re: (Score:2)
the adult is responsible for the choices of the minor.
Adult doesn't agree due to the minor clicking. I believe the problem here is the Adult already agreed previously to the minor. The law also provides that if the requirement to arbitrate is challenged that it is actually part of the dispute the Arbitrator who gets to decide.
Courts have concluded that unless parties have agreed otherwise: procedural arbitrability shall be decided by the arbitrator and substantive arbitrability would be decided by
Re: (Score:2)
Them being demonstrably unhinged also means that anything they do would be eventually tossed out because they're clearly not a neutral third party at that point.
Arbitrations are not appealable, and the result can't be challenged generally unless you can show the arbitrator is actually corrupt. Arbitrators are not required to consider the law, and their findings and damage awards are not amendable by a court.
Re: (Score:2)
You never know, if the arbiter is about to retire and that was the last case, it will be nice if the small guy is given a nice boost.
Will not affect the arbiter anyway, considering this would have been the last case either way.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean the one on Uber's payroll?
Re: (Score:3)
Arbitrations almost always split the baby. You ask for $100 million and the other side says nothing, and the arbitrator will give you $50 million.
Arbitration favors corporations by design (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why by and large they prefer arbitration with the only exception being when the risk presents itself that a large number of people might use arbitration as a sort of denial of service attack.
Who pays the arbiter, and who choses the arbiter? That's an indication of the expected bias of the arbiter. Of course, it could also be assumed that the arbiter will not be biased because ... uhh ... it's in their job description?
Re: (Score:2)
when the risk presents itself that a large number of people might use arbitration as a sort of denial of service attack.
I saw OpenAI has added a patch for that hole in their agreement.
Batch arbitration. If 25 or more claimants represented by the same or similar counsel file demands for arbitration raising substantially similar Disputes within 90 days of each other, then you and OpenAI agree that NAM will administer them in batches of up to 50 claimants each (“Batch”), unless there are less than
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the arbitrator will be unhinged
The problem is the Arbitrator is usually hand-picked by the company who requires arbitration, and the company pays their fee. They give an Incredible advantage to the company that hires them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yep, you owe the victims a trillion dollars and the CEO of Uber has to personally pay for a global broadcast on all TV networks of note and then for three hours dance around in Times Square singing I'm a Little Tea Pot after being tarred and feathered."
I don't think they're going to pick ChatGPT to be the arbitrator.
Guess I'll have to start to read the fineprint (Score:2)
Agreeing to a TOS for a contest at Walmart might have unforeseeable consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Guess I'll have to start to read the fineprint (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they're clearly bogus, except that currently courts are extremely beholden to corporations. Shop around and you can always find a judge who firmly believes that all contracts are more binding than the actual law, even if such contracts were never negotiated, signed, or even read. It's like if they read shakespeare they'd side with Shylock for contractual reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, you literally cannot avoid these absurd TOS agreements. Even to get a job, you basically sign away your right to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not far off.... first it was Disney - who failed - now looks like Uber will set the precedent
Good to know. (Score:1)
Re:Good to know. (Score:4)
I've never used Uber or Uber Eats. And I plan to keep it that way.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't personally have much use for such middlemen. If we're not eating it at the restaurant, I prefer to call it in, go and pick it up myself.
But my adult daughter, on the other hand, uses them all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there's a contract that applies if you open the door to a restaurant, you don't actually have to read the contract for it to be binding on you. Shrink-wrap taken to absurd limits.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that your adult daughter, who is the direct product of you and your spouse, thus consisting 100% of your combined DNA material, has agreed to the ToS? That means you have agreed to it as well by extension.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm middle-aged and while I don't use Uber Eats specifically, I Door Dash all the time. Having to put on pants, get in a car, drive in traffic and interact with other human beings on a Friday night after a long week of work when I'm too tired to cook dinner, let alone go pick it up, sounds like a chore so great that it would make eating not even worth it.
When I'm travelling I use Uber because I've found that it's faster and cheaper than taxis (though friends of mine in certain big cities are telling me that
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, crap like that does not fly in Europe. In the US I would now stay far away from these predatory companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't either. I actually did try to use it once, but they didn't like the debit card that I used so I gave up and never tried again.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck. All the other food delivery services have the exact same kinds of terms. You probably even signed away your rights to sue brick-and-mortar stores too, if you ever bought something from them online.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what you are going to do? Not order food via delivery? HAHAHAHA! Good luck with that! /s
Requiring arbitration should be illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I'll have to wait until we elect enough congress critters that will make it so.
Until then, oh well, that's the way the cookie crumbles
Re: Requiring arbitration should be illegal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
TOS that aren't witnessed and signed by all parties should be illegal.
Re:Requiring arbitration should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
The way the MOST of the world works is, the "paper" (or in this case the text of the TOS) isn't actually the contract. The agreement is. The paperwork is merely a record of the agreement, and that record may or may not be accurate.
So what happens is judges look at this and ask "Would a reasonable person have agreed to this and did this person know this was what was being agreed to?" and if the answer is no, then its not what the person agreed to, and that clause is struck out as being not a faithful representation of the agreement.
I have no idea why the US doesnt do it this way, but I suspect its got something to do with a combination of lobbyists writing hostile laws and the politicization of the judiciary favoring politically useful judges over legally competent judges.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a highly negative view of lawsuits by many in the US. They don't see it as getting justice for themselves, they see it as a severe abuse of common sense where only lawyers win. Ie, the continual release of stories about the legal system gone wild, seen by people who never read the details. They think the woman who severely injured herself should not have sued McDonald's because they never read the case (McDonald's warned several times about the danger but ignored it0, or they never read beyond he
Re: (Score:1)
Most the post on this topic are spot on and yours is pretty in line with the rest as well.
With that said, had these people had their friend give them a ride, would they be suing their friend for the accident? Doubtful unless they have deep pocketed friends they don't actually like. This seems largely like a money grab over something that was an accident. Even if the driver made the mistake, I don't really see how that translates to suing Uber.
There could of course be a lot more details that were left out of
Re: Requiring arbitration should be illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if I'm taking you to the airport and it's at least a half hour drive, would it be so wrong of me to ask for $5 for gas? At that point, it's basically charging for the ride.
I've seen both good reasons and bad reasons to sue. Sometimes it's totally justified at the business is absolutely wrong. Other times, it was an idiot that did something idiotic but some how it's someone else's fault they got hurt and they want $$$ because reasons.
One person I know had to sue a dealership over a lemon law on a car
Re: Requiring arbitration should be illegal (Score:2)
Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury (Score:3, Insightful)
It is unclear to me how any arbitration clause in a phone app's click-through terms and conditions could possibly supersede the Bill of Rights, specifically the Seventh Amendment [wikipedia.org]:
Any lawyers here who could explain the legal basis for Uber's case here?
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is this is a civil suit.
Re: (Score:1)
Olde Tyme Common Law is largely equal to civil law. Congress recognizes this [1].
[1] https://constitution.congress.... [congress.gov]
Re:Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury (Score:5, Informative)
Generally the constitution binds governments not private individuals (Hence why websites banning people doesnt violate the constitution). In this case, its saying the *government* cant take away your right to a jury.
In this case however, the User made an "agreement" (many countries, maybe most, dont put a lot of weight in shrink wrap TOSs because they dont accurately represent what the customer believed they where agreeing to. The US apparently has to do things differently for some reason.) then that agreement is what holds supremacy here since ultimately lawsuits are all about resolving disputes about agreements (or the lack therof)
Re:Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury (Score:5, Insightful)
This is technically true, but the situation here is not merely in knowingly giving up one's rights temporarily. This is giving up one's rights a-priori, before you know that you need your rights. No one ever expected that an Uber car would run them over, or that the giving up of rights applied even when they weren't ordering food. \\
It _should_ be illegal to create arbitration agreements in advance, it _should_ be illegal to have a binding contract merely by removing shrink-wrap or clicking a button during an app installation, and it _should_ be illegal to have an arbitration agreement forced on you because of an email that says the old TOS is now obsolete and therefore you automatically agree to the new stuff in the TOS. But it's not illegal for some unfathomable reason.
Re: (Score:2)
And it _should_ be illegal to have an arbitration agreement forced on you because of an email that says the old TOS is now obsolete and therefore you automatically agree to the new stuff in the TOS. But it's not illegal for some unfathomable reason.
I will explain why it is fathomable.
It is a combination of some basic legal principles in contract law.
1. The parties can amend an agreement they have. One side will make an offer to the new terms, the other side may accept them.
2. The contract may provide for termination (without breach) by one or more parties. Big Company's contract with you specifies that they may terminate the contract and take away the services. You probably have some cancellation option on a monthly basis or something.
3. In order to a
Re: (Score:2)
It is unclear to me how any arbitration clause in a phone app's click-through terms and conditions could possibly supersede the Bill of Rights, specifically the Seventh Amendment [wikipedia.org]:
Any lawyers here who could explain the legal basis for Uber's case here?
The 7th amendment states that in civil cases, your right to a jury is preserved. By signing an agreement with an arbitration clause, you are waiving your right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. There is nothing in the Constitution that preserves your right to bring a case.
Re: (Score:3)
The snag is that while this makes sense in the case of resolving active disputes - such as settling out of court - this does NOT make sense that one can waive their rights in advance. Technically the constitution doesn't forbid it, but it doesn't allow it either, so you look at common law, legislated law, and case law, and none of those seem to imply that one can give up their rights as a minor and they will last for eternity.
Heck, those aren't slaves you're trying to free, I have an agreement right here w
Re: Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury (Score:1)
Yep. I wish Americans would stop looking at their Constitution like it is some perfect rulebook. The Constitution was written by slave-owners, for a slave-owning society, where indentured servitude was still a thing. And what is indentured servitude if not a voluntary waiving of a person's right of freedom? Hence, the Constitution is meant to allow voluntary waiving of personal rights, and it's exactly what happened to that couple.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I wish Americans would stop looking at their Constitution like it is some perfect rulebook. The Constitution was written by slave-owners, for a slave-owning society, where indentured servitude was still a thing. And what is indentured servitude if not a voluntary waiving of a person's right of freedom? Hence, the Constitution is meant to allow voluntary waiving of personal rights, and it's exactly what happened to that couple.
OK, let's be clear about your statements, if you please. Many of the authors of the Constitution owned slaves, though "most" did _not_ own slaves. Those who did not were trying to put and keep the country together, and made compromises in order to do so. Regrettable, and the alternative was no country.
Wrong point of contention (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, no one cares if it was the daughter or not because no one ever reads those, and Uber was fully aware of that.
As much as I hate extra government regulation, this is a case where they should really step in. No one is going to read a legal agreement in order to use an app, it's idiotic to claim that someone read and understood a lengthy agreement they just scrolled through.
There should be one TOS mandated by the government and it's the same for everyone. If you really need a special clause it should be presented in large font that the user can't miss.
Anytime someone is surprised that they agreed to 'X' the system is a failure..
Re:Wrong point of contention (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if one did read it.
I would never expect it to indemnify them from something unrelated my use of Uber Eats.
Re: (Score:2)
The one time you need the government it fails, because the anti-government crowd have weakened the government so much that corporations are in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Oligarchs controlled both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
China is in the balance about who will win - the CPC Han or the Shanghai Faction.
Just how totalitarian of a government do you imagine could break the Iron Law?
Re: (Score:2)
Oligarchs controlled both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
China is in the balance about who will win - the CPC Han or the Shanghai Faction.
Just how totalitarian of a government do you imagine could break the Iron Law?
Just a small clarification. Russian oligarchs really only showed up near the end of the USSR when they started privatizing everything (and they bought things up at rock bottom prices).
In Russia, they effectively ran things for several years until Putin got enough power to make an example out of a few of them. They're still there, but they're more like ultra-rich cabinet ministers.
Ukraine was in the same boat but instead of a dictator bringing them in line it was genuine democratic push-back. That's ultimate
Re: (Score:2)
Adhesive contracts and alienation of the right to a jury trial are both unconstitutional.
"Certain inalienable rights" is how the US is set up. Other countries are different, which is fine, but adhesive binding arbitration is unAmerican.
The Court System is completely corrupt and owned by the oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to read a legal agreement in order to use an app, it's idiotic to claim that someone read and understood a lengthy agreement they just scrolled through.
Your attitude is a radical departure from how society has always functioned. And it is different from how laws and contracts have always worked. If you told someone that they didn't need to have a lawyer look at a contract 60 years ago when I was a kid, they would tell you that you're crazy.
Did you buy a house? Did you have a lawyer look over the contracts?
The problem is that, being services, there has to be a contract. It is not a purchase like a candy bar. And given all the things that can go wrong, a sho
The judges are just plain mad (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreeing to have food delivered is completely different from taking a taxi ride. This is just another example of unreadable and unreasonable terms & conditions.
Re:The judges are just plain mad (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreeing to have food delivered is completely different from taking a taxi ride. This is just another example of unreadable and unreasonable terms & conditions.
I don't disagree, but I still feel a correction is in order. I would say "This is just another example of the legal system failing to both criminalize unreadable and unreasonable terms & conditions and harshly punish the companies and lawyers which create and attempt to enforce them".
Any legal system that allows this practice not just to exist, but to grow and flourish, is morally bankrupt.
So for decades this crap was unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies did like that so they began to lobby. Lobbying wasn't enough so they used dark money to get favorable congressman elected. Those congressmen then began the long, slow process of putting judges into the system who would be favorable to their desires. What is commonly referred to as court packing.
This has been going on for 40 years but we're only just now starting to really get hit with the full force of it. Assuming we are still a democracy next year, which is kind of touch and go at the moment, there will be adjustments and realignments to fix this mess but we're going to go through a heck of a lot of misery in the meantime.
What about MY TOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's to stop me from writing an "opt-out" agreement that automatically enrolls the businesses I do business with into MY terms of service when their representatives take my money and I can change it at any time and it supersedes all other agreements including any agreements made in the past?
Seems like I can just copy paste a lot of stuff from their own TOS stuff that gives me ownership of their marketing targeted at me and absolving myself of any responsibilities and on and on using the same broad vague language they've grown so accustomed to using. Apparently it's OK to redefine the word "purchase" to mean "rent" if it's written into a TOS, so that means I can redefine "view" to mean "Own" in my own TOS.
Then if they fight to invalidate the language, they invalidate their own agreements right? Since its the same language in the same agreements using the same methods, just going the other way... right?
If a little girl can enter into a contract with Ubereats that forced arbitration with Uber (rides) , surely a customer service representative can enter into a similar agreement when they take my money.
A contract is a mutual agreement. This stuff is getting silly. It's time we start advocating for our end.
Money (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks are only just now beginning to see what happens when the people behind this bullshit start cashing in their chips.
Re:What about MY TOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's to stop me from writing an "opt-out" agreement
At least, to give yourself a try at the court system, you'd first have to bring a tablet with you and have the Uber driver or McDonald's employee etc. click "(X) I have read and agree with WolfgangVL's TOS, Accept, Next, Next, Approve & Proceed" before they have business with you.
Then there are some issues:
1. You as an adult had full capacity to approve the Uber's TOS, while a Uber driver as a contractor (or a McDonald's employee) had no capacity to oblige the company with his/her signature. The case in TFA is shocking in that it was a minor (the daughter) that signed the TOS.
2. You also signed their TOS previously by installing an app or implicitly when entering their shop. But they did not come door to door and accepted your TOS by putting their fingerprint on your doorbell. There are now two conflicting TOS, and I bet you lose with the usual argument that they can spend more time and money arguing in court than you can afford.
My workplace reads the TOS of the shops where we purchase supplies (essentially payment terms) and if not to their liking, they just send ours and insist that they accept our terms. Sometimes they accept, sometimes they refuse, and we decide if we proceed with the purchase. But what matters is that in the end only one document is signed, not two conflicting ones.
Re: (Score:2)
What's to stop me from writing an "opt-out" agreement that automatically enrolls the businesses I do business with into MY terms of service when their representatives take my money and I can change it at any time and it supersedes all other agreements including any agreements made in the past?
You can certainly do that, and it's entirely legal. But you have to first communicate it to the other party, and they have to agree to it. In this context, I don't think a "no action" type of response would be sufficient evidence that they accepted your offer. Nor would their future solicitations or orthogonal offers suffice without reference to this offer of yours.
So it can't really be "opt-out". And opt-out is not how their contracts with you work, either. That kind of opt-out is specific terms in particu
Where are those Valve lawyers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Valve recently got rid of their arbitration agreement because they got wind of the fact that some lawyers were preparing to launch a massive number of arbitration cases against the company. Basically the lawyers collect cases and make it really easy to go after a company, and they then launch all the cases at once.
Just need them to aim their guns at Uber - I'm sure they can come up with thousands of claims they can file all in one go, especially near investment call times where the bill is due but the case ties up employees for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they had an easier time recruiting cases, simply going onto reddit and such saying "Have you bought games in the last year? You may be entitled to compen$ation! Click here to learn more!" with a quick-fill form, quick case and representation.
But one can hope.
Unconscionable (Score:3)
Contracts are supposed to be voided if they are lopsided because of a power imbalance or contain unconscionable terms. This and the Disney case are both, and should be automatically voided.
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance, is Uber accused of some misconduct that caused the accident?
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance, is Uber accused of some misconduct that caused the accident?
Most reports (like the summary here) seem a little vague on this, and details very much matter.
For example, were the victims riding in an Uber? Although they seem (to consumers) like logically distinct services, Uber (rideshare) and Uber Eats are actually the same app. There are tabs for "Ride", "Food", etc. I don't remember if there is a separate ToS for them or if they reference some common ToS.
I think, though, that the victims were not using Uber. They were just driving around somewhere, and an Uber driv
Re: Unconscionable (Score:2)
If they're only landlords to an unrelated restaurant, then WHY THE F are they shielding that unrelated restaurant from responsibility with their bullshit shrinkwrap contract?
May be the restaurant is not as unrelated to Disney as you seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts are supposed to be voided if they are lopsided because of a power imbalance or contain unconscionable terms. This and the Disney case are both, and should be automatically voided.
Lopsided is one possible component of an Unconscionable analysis, but it's not that simple. And there's nothing "automatic" about it.
But the correct legal and moral outcome in these cases is obvious.
Uber, like Disney, is going to lose.
Maybe by settling out of court,
partly because they want to delay precedent.
But in the end, even with massive power,
there's no way they will get away with this shit.
Revenge? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> What if I give some really drunk dude at a bar $20 to call an Uber to get home, provided he then pukes and shits all over the inside of the Uber car?
Unfortunately, cleanup would fall to the "contractor."
Re: (Score:1)
Court packing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Adding additional Supreme Court justices, that would be packing.
And why do you think a liberal court would rule differently here? Courts will uphold contracts, what legal reason do you have that a liberal judge would rule differently here?
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, this is a New Jersey Court of Appeals, not the SCOTUS. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Rsilvergun's nonsense is tiresome and predictable.
"...packed the courts with pro corporate right wing judges..."
Out of the last sixteen years Democrats have controlled the presidency for 12 of them.
The president proposes judges.
"As of September 18, 2024, of the 680 district court judges, 370 were appointed by Democratic presidents compared to 267 by Republican ones. Within the individual circuit jurisdictions, Democratic presidents have appointed majorities in 8 circuits while Republican presidents have app
Didn't they have to agree to something? (Score:2)
Although the whole thing sucks and Uber is bad, I don't understand how they were able to ride in an Uber without first themselves clicking "agree" on the ride hailing app. The fact that their daughter did as well is irrelevant if they did it.
real taxis have insurance that covers crashes (Score:3)
real taxis have insurance that covers crashes
Re: (Score:1)
Mod up, a good question. My best understanding is that the answer is "yes, but no."
In my state, Massachusetts, a web search indicates the liability limit for taxis is the same as the liability for the general public which is $20k/$40k [1]. These are limits on hospital expenses, not a limit on civil damages. You would need additional insurance for that. But anyway, each taxi is a separate corporation, run by the taxi driver. Similar to Uber or Lyft model. The drivers don't have the money to defend or p
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most of the folks driving for Uber/Lyft/Whatever don't have a commercial driver policy, but instead a personal policy which explicitly excludes commercial use of the vehicle. So if there's an accident in which the driver is at fault, his insurance policy won't cover the loss because it was an unauthorized use under the policy. The same is true if you're hit by said driver in your own vehicle - the driver is technically uninsured.
So the injured party can always sue the driver, but these folks
Time to put hard limits on "TOS" (Score:2)
Arbitration (Score:4, Insightful)
It. should not apply to consumer contracts. This was not the original intent. The supreme court opened this can of worms.
Arbitration probably won't be reformed anytime soon by congerss. Both parties are in the pockets of the vested interests which want to keep it around.
Without getting money out of elections (Public campaign finance, and bans on lobbying) no party is going to be willing to change the rules.
The best thing you can do for now is to avoid doing business with any company having these arbitration clauses in their contracts. This will be very hard as most companies are requiring it these days. So you have to ask yourself:
1. Can I go without the product or service from a company which demands arbitration in their contract?
2. What is the risk that something bad will happen while using the service?
If Arbitration can't be eliminated by the federal government, then maybe it should be mandated that it at least disclosed at the very top of the contract in large black letters and not buried deep withing the contract and in any advertising associated with the product instead of being in fine print. Think of Cigarette warnings as a model for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that second question is not even enough.
Nothing bad happened while using Uber Eats. It was while taking a different service from the same company that something bad happened.
There was another case just a couple of months ago with Disney, where someone was injured at one of their parks, but because they'd agreed to arbitration on the DISNEY+ subscription Disney argued that applied to the injury at the park as well. Who in their right mind EXPECTS that when signing up for a streaming service?!
Why don't we require better proof for legal docs? (Score:2)
Random person clicks next a bunch of times and now I'm locked in to a legally binding contract? That doesn't seem right. And it's not like we couldn't do better (take a picture when done, ask for fingerprints, etc).
And don't get me started on how insecure signatures are.
Sytem of Injustice (Score:4, Insightful)
\o/ (Score:1)
I wonder if the legal profession will ever be able to modify the law so that it may only be used to uphold (rather than offend) morality.
\o/ (Score:1)
Holy fuck!
Lawyers, challenging the precept that 'money is the root of all evil' since <the dawn of 'civilisation'>
Someone should create an app which tracks all the un
Not reading TOS can also be a life changing event (Score:2)
Simple Solution (Score:2)
If a corporation insists on one-sided click-wrap legal bullshit to deliver basic services, then it must exist in only one narrow sector. Disney, purveyor of online media can try to slot in whatever nonsense it wants, but Disney Parks is unaffected.
Alternatively, bring back trust busting and ban these bullshit terms and conditions.
You can't not agree (Score:1)
unconstitutional (Score:2)
The US Constitution along with amendments provides a right to trial by jury for both criminal and civil matters. The founders did not envision negating that by a contract, which is what the arbitration agreement is. Unfortunately, an idiot scotus held that arbitration contracts trump the Constitution, and they I believe have further held that the states can't make a law saying otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the driver was an employee of Uber and actively doing their job at the time of the accident. If a post office worker hits you with their post office vehicle, the post office has a portion of culpability. This is how the courts have worked for a long time. The employer can be found culpable if the employer should have known about the driver's lack of safe driving skills, or that the driver was overworked and didn't get enough breaks, or that the employer never had safety training, or any training,