Court Blocks Uber Crash Lawsuit After Couple's Daughter Agreed To Uber Eats TOS (npr.org) 47
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: (Score:2)
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 hav
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: (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:2)
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?
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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:2)
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: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.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TOS that aren't witnessed and signed by all parties should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
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 repres
Seventh Amendment guarantees trial by jury (Score:4, 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: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: (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.
Wrong point of contention (Score:2)
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 sh
Re: (Score:2)
Even if one did read it.
I would never expect it to indemnify them from something unrelated my use of Uber Eats.
The judges are just plain mad (Score:2)
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.
What about MY TOS? (Score:3)
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)
Folks are only just now beginning to see what happens when the people behind this bullshit start cashing in their chips.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Where are those Valve lawyers? (Score:4, 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)
Unconscionable (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.
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance, is Uber accused of some misconduct that caused the accident?
Revenge? (Score:2)
Court packing (Score:3)
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
Time to put hard limits on "TOS" (Score:2)
Arbitration (Score:2)
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
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:2)
\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