Uber’s mandatory arbitration upheld in case over severe crash injuries
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
23
(24
/
-1)
One chamber did, twice, but the bill died in the Senate both times. From my post in the D+ thread in August:
The House passed the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, twice -- in 2019 and in 2022. However, in both cases, it died in the Judiciary Committee. In the 116th Congress, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was chair; in the 117th Congress, the chair was Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Upvote
52
(52
/
0)
I think the time is ripe for a law the limits the length of the terms that can be presented. Another year and generative AI will create 500 page legal agreements to cover every lawsuit ever encountered.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
If the daughter agreeing to the terms counts, can we make write a TOS that voids TOS previously agreed to for other companies?
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
"There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."
--Arthur Jensen, Network
View: https://youtu.be/yuBe93FMiJc
--Arthur Jensen, Network
View: https://youtu.be/yuBe93FMiJc
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
I, too, couldn't tell from the wording in the article whether the plaintiffs were in the Uber or in a different car that was hit by the Uber driver. But reading the lawsuit makes it clear that they were in the Uber. Which at least makes the decision make a little bit of sense. It's disgusting that ordering food through Uber Eats forces you to waive your right to sue even if you get seriously injured in an accident. But it would be truly absurd if, by EVER agreeing to Uber's TOS, that meant that you waive your right to sue if you get mowed down by an Uber driver while you're not even using the service.
Then again, I'm sure Uber would love it if that were the case. Can't wait for that to come up in a lawsuit someday.
Then again, I'm sure Uber would love it if that were the case. Can't wait for that to come up in a lawsuit someday.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Disney all over again. So this is our future then? Agreeing to a TOS update that is required to continue to use the service deletes your rights just in case that very same company's company's subsidiary tangentially harms you in any way in the most egregious manner possible. But here, you get a free company branded key chain. Yay!
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
No, the claims against Uber are almost certainly some form of vicarious liability claims, seeking to hold Uber liable for the actions of the driver. It's probably similar to the argument that would be made if this case involved a trucking company and an owner/operator driver. If Uber was only providing insurance coverage, they would not be named in the lawsuit.
From the perspective of the plaintiffs, Uber is going to be the primary target. The driver is a (very) secondary target.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
This is almost exactly what Disney tried to argue just last month before they dropped their motion, presumably for fear of the court finding that the Disney+ TOS did not in fact extend to cover an incident in one of their retail properties. It's very reasonable to think Uber would try to make the same argument had Georgia not been a passenger on one of their rides.
I'm pretty sure I ordered from Uber Eats once or twice years ago. I guess that means I've given up my right to legal redress in a court of law in perpetuity. Sure was worth it for a couple of meals!
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
When people cannot rely on the courts to provide justice, vigilante justice tends to be the next step. I don't think that's a good path for us to go down as a society.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
So, seriously, don't agree to their terms. Yes, it's less convenient for you. You have to find a cab or a friend to drive you home. I get it.
But people continuing to agree to their terms means they'll continue to set those terms. If enough people refuse their terms, they'll change them to something more reasonable. or the dealership will go back to their own courtesy drivers because the nearby competitor did that and they're bringing in more service business because of it.
Upvote
-14
(5
/
-19)
This is the way.
The problem is that neither side is treating these like the contracts they are. The companies throw them out there, hoping people are too lazy to read them, and filling them with legalese that you need an attorney to understand. On the other hand, people seem to be willing to sign anything if it's the least bit more convenient to them.
If we started treating these like the actual contracts they are, things would get very much better, very quickly.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
But enough people won't. It would be great if they did, but it's effectively never going to happen. Even if people actually thought about what they're agreeing to in contracts like these, the actual value they're getting from that $40 Uber ride is almost certainly going to vastly exceed the value lost due to arbitration should Uber somehow injure them.
Which is why we have laws, and a constitution. So we don't have to give up our right to legal redress simply to participate in a society where everyday services are provided by private parties. Supposedly, anyway.
Upvote
37
(38
/
-1)
It's absolutely inexcusable that the courts have ever allowed forced arbitration clauses to hold up. The right of petition is not something that can be signed away.
The whole "we can change the terms of the contract whenever we want" stuff is bullshit too - that should never be considered valid. And sending out a clickthrough ultimatum to agree to new terms should be no different when it's fundamentally coercive (as it only comes up at the exact time you're trying to use something, there's no option to refuse and continue under the old agreement, and that's without even getting into the idea of a company being able to hold something like email hostage unless you agree). It flies in the face of the basic principles of contract law.
The whole "we can change the terms of the contract whenever we want" stuff is bullshit too - that should never be considered valid. And sending out a clickthrough ultimatum to agree to new terms should be no different when it's fundamentally coercive (as it only comes up at the exact time you're trying to use something, there's no option to refuse and continue under the old agreement, and that's without even getting into the idea of a company being able to hold something like email hostage unless you agree). It flies in the face of the basic principles of contract law.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
In the case of the McDonald's litigation, the restaurant in question had a standing policy of keeping their coffee extremely hot, so it would take customers longer to drink, and they would ask for fewer free refills. The plaintiff in the case was a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns as a result.
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
They could sue the driver and win, and never see a penny with which to pay their medical expenses.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have my signature on a piece of paper, you don't have a contract. A contract is a negotiated agreement between two or more parties; if there's no negotiation, there's no contract. Sure, I clicked a button, but no, I didn't agree.
Upvote
15
(19
/
-4)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
From a European point of view, every USA judicial story on ARS is its own horror story. Not even joking, this is actually horrifying.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Unless, of course, that other road user has ever used an Uber or Uber Eats! Then they (Uber) can trot out the "Disney defence".
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Disney argued the exact same thing after a death at Disney World, claiming the victim agreed to arbitration when signing up to Apple+.
After publish backlash, Disney dropped this request and let the case come to court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr7r9djxj0do
After publish backlash, Disney dropped this request and let the case come to court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr7r9djxj0do
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Yeah. This is the Disney crap all over again. All I can say is vote with your money folks! Stop giving Uber your money for anything and make it clear to them why in reviews of their apps, etcetera. It’s the only thing they’ll listen to.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Yes, it should be absolutely impossible for a contract to void civil rights under any circumstances whatsoever, or for a consumer contract, contract of adhesion, or fixed form contract to waive consumer rights, under the principle of unconscionability. Ordinary consumers are not lawyers, and should not be expected to have to understand long contracts with major implications to make what would, offline, be a trivial purchase. Additionally, there should be a rule that a consumer contract can only govern matters specifically related to one transaction or service: e.g. whatever you agree with to stream a tv show should only affect the payment for that show and how/when you can watch it, not all other interactions with all related entities.
If it were up to me, any software distributed to a person who couldn’t tax-deduct any licence fees would have default terms of use too, with the only permitted additional restrictions being a time-limited licence where the duration is shown prominently in the marketing materials, or an indefinite licence with a limited support period. The distributor could grant additional rights but couldn’t withhold them. That way there couldn’t be any sneaky BS there either.
Also, especially for something like Uber, how are you supposed to come to a meeting of minds over the complicated terms when you’re drunk, tired, and trying to get home, or trying to get a pizza?
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
"People" with 9-15 year old dormant accounts that suddenly reappear to defend corporate interests (or Elon Musk) are rightfully held as suspicious.
"People" who lack complete empathy for other people, even when they're involved in appalling accidents that leave them with life changing injuries, to defend the corporation that exploits both their workers and the victims, deserve no empathy or respect what so ever themselves either.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
I agree with you POV, and also agree that overturning these agreements only helps to promote an irresponsible mindset on consumers and companies.
Nonetheless, i wonder what is the issue with arbitration here.. it is a necessary step to receive insurance payments? Or are the defendant looking for something else other than health expenses and/or income losses?
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Ahh but that's precisely what the Gig Economy is trying to get ahead of; who exactly do you go vigilante on, when you no longer have an office structure to even report too? When you're all just contractors with an on-phone app?
The push to "Eat Out To Help Out" during Covid here in the UK was so blatantly an attempt to break unions, rearrange working expectations and, even from the point of view of ordering food and protecting public safety, massively expensive and counter productive. But it nudged the public acceptance of a powerless, disconnected dystopia one more step closer... Normalise not even knowing where your food comes from! Ghost kitchens for everyone!
However, the path foward won't be going individually Postal I fear, but the embrace of even more extreme ideologies to tap into that wide spread anguish and to change society as a whole. Those currently benefitting from the money coming in from exploiting more and more from the people are assuming that this extreme ideology will be Fascism, and that they'll be the ones on the top still. Their true fear is not a rising of workers... but the rise of religious extremism instead. Something that you can't stop with EULAs around material things, because it's based on the immaterial.
The rich and powerful flirt with it, but it's rapidly spinning out of their control.
And that's not a good path for us to go down as a society either.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The law is the law. Make it so that a contract cannot by-pass law. Mandatory arbitration should never apply to individuals.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
There is no fair reason for having to read and agree for pages of contract to buy a simple product or service. There is not fair reason for having several pages of contract to use a streaming service, to be transported on a car or to buy a cell phone. Regular law should be sufficient to manage all reasonable cases.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Ahh, but you see, what you personally didn't think about is that even seeing the words SinclairZX81 has triggered memories in me of the old 8-bit computer wars. And I was a Commodore Kid. (This part is actually true so far...) This now invokes in me a complete rage; all that toxicity, all that arrogance and corporate parasociality even before the term had been coined... And you should know this is possible. If you don't, you've obviously not thought about your username enough. You are now responsible for anything I do to avenge all those jokes about Commodore users back in the day...
The point being here that there is a legal definition of responsibility, yes... but there is a huge gap between that and the common sense, practical definition of "thinking for yourself" and being rational. Every one of us has to limit the amount of information we process just to function in day to day life. Some of the things that may exist are so irrational or rare we're unlikely to ever meet them in real life, or if we do, they would be so illogical and arbitrary no decent person would think it unfair we didn't consider them before hand.
Meanwhile these EULAs are deliberately inflated so no reasonable person can possibly read, or even comprehend the terms applied within a single one, not without compromising their practical usage; are you seriously going to try and claim you've sat down and read every single page of every single EULA for every single product you've got? Go on, be honest, don't lie to us and yourself; you haven't, because no one has the time to do that any more. Especially as many of the EULAs aren't even on the product, but hosted on a third party webpage somewhere else. Terms And Conditions Apply, remember?
Most people grasp this imbalance and exploitation of imbalance inherently; we all know that corporations are exploiting what you call convenience, but most understand as common sense; that there is a tacit understanding that we're just clicking the button to say Yes because we need to prioritise our free time... but that there is the implicit assumption that your product also won't kill or maim us. And that if it does, the law in general is there to ensure justice for that. We don't have time to create and then validate constantly an entire justice system ourselves. Our politicians and courts are supposed to be doing that.
That they are not, that corporations are slowly bending the contracts we sign to the point that we don't even have the right to our own bodily health, isn't addressed by saying "Well maybe read what you sign". Any more than you could be blamed for not thinking enough if I hauled off and punched you for being a Spectrum user. That we've normalised corporations acting like selfish, irrational thugs is the problem, not that any particular user didn't read enough legalese to notice there's an excuse in the text for them behaving so. If the law justifies immorality, that doesn't make it right, and both the text and the law should be changed.
But anyway, you can't disagree, because if you do, it's clearly because as defined in paragraph 1, Spectrum users are all idiots. Case dismissed.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
I too would like to live in a world of unicorns and make-believe.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
In germany you can't have surprising statements in the terms of service.
Waiving your rights for anything not related to the food ordering would be impossible.
Heck, even waiving your rights for the food ordering itself through general terms of service is impossible.
I believe the US will fix this eventually. It's just that anything related to the law moves at a snails pace.
In the meantime, investing in corporate america seems to remain a good investment.
Waiving your rights for anything not related to the food ordering would be impossible.
Heck, even waiving your rights for the food ordering itself through general terms of service is impossible.
I believe the US will fix this eventually. It's just that anything related to the law moves at a snails pace.
In the meantime, investing in corporate america seems to remain a good investment.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)