Uber’s mandatory arbitration upheld in case over severe crash injuries

Couple said daughter agreed to terms update when ordering food via Uber Eats.

See full article...

 

[Dreadalus]

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.

The whole "Georgia's daughter ordered pizza" thing seems like a red herring. If no one in the family had ever used Uber Eats they still would have had to agree to the same TOS before using the service for transport, right? Or did I miss something?

I am of course horrified by the proliferation of arbitration and clicking away Constitutional rights, especially when stuffed into 130 phone screens worth of text, but it doesn't seem like it would've changed the outcome at all if food weren't involved.

 

[informationsuperhighway]

So technically everything will become arbitration. As mergers and acquisitions happen one unrelated service will put everything under the umbrella. Now this ruling legitimizes this. Expect in the next few years everything will be shielded under this arbitration ruling.

Our plan when we retire is to leave the US it is becoming a dystopian hellscape one day at a time and it is sad to see this in process.

 

[informationsuperhighway]

It's long past time for congress to pass a law outlawing mandatory arbitration clauses. These things are utterly disgusting in their ability to abuse customers and let companies slide.

Congress does not represent or work for you unless you are a lobbying firm. They will never create any law that will stop this.

 

[kvndoom]

We've been clicking through TOS boxes without reading them since what, Windows 95?

It'll only get worse.

 

[BunchOfArs]

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.

As an Atari 800 user, I'd just like to point out that the ZX81 was the precursor to the Spectrum. Also, anyone who chose a home computer that didn't have Defender/Pacman/Asteriods etc as plug in ROM packs were stupid.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

I am so glad that, using technology, a company created an interesting model, then deployed that tech in a thoughtful w…

Fuck Uber.

 

[mihail_pramatarov]

Any EULA must be printed, every paragraph initialed, and the contract certified mailed to the appropriate company. Any change to terms of service instantly suspended all billing until both parties have countersigned contracts. If we're going to pretend these are valid contracts, let's treat them as such. I bet there aren't many left when users start leaving in droves.

i agree with demanding some kind of physical presence for this type of agreement or going to notaire, because it is exatly the same with the porn sites:
popup: are u 18 or above
your teenage kid is clicking the yes button and the wicked sodom is upon you.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

The McDonald's case wasn't even a frivolous lawsuit, it was actually a very reasonable lawsuit, only asking for a few thousand dollars for medical expenses or such, despite the person being very severely injured. Anyone who says it was asking for millions of dollars was lying.

Here is a good write up about it.

https://stellaawards.com/stella/

 

[42Kodiak42]

We really just need to put forth a law that puts some hard limits on arbitration, including click-through arbitration.

These clauses are dubious enough when applied to general complaints and issues one might have with a service, such as excessive outages or poor quality. They should never be applied to injury and death suffered by a party.

 

[gnasher729]

Per the article:

Their Uber driver ran a red.

In that case arbitration should result in “Uber is guilty as sin” and if not, the arbitrator should be sued for all he has.

 

[mpfaff]

In principle, I agree with you completely. And yet, seriously, read your goddamned contracts.

I know, I know, it's long, complicated, and boring. I get it. But you're agreeing to it. Which means you're bound to your agreement, even if it's inconvenient later.

People refusing to agree to these BS agreements would go a long way to making them go away.

That type of agreement shouldn't be legal in the first place. Signing away your legal right to trial should not be possible. Signing up to order food shouldn't mean you can't sue a company when they injure you with a car. Watching The Simpsons online shouldn't mean your family doesn't get to file a suit in court if that company kills you in one of their properties.

Binding arbitration has limited to no appeal rights and the arbitrator is being paid by the corporate defendant. The fact that you can be forced into a process that favors the organization that did you harm by tapping "I agree" in an app is a solid indictment of the shortcomings of American consumer protection laws.

 

[gnasher729]

Seems to me that the driver was responsible, not Uber as a company. But of course, who's responsible often isn't important. Who has the largest wallet is.

You are totally mistaken. By hiring the driver, Uber as a company takes on the responsibility in almost every case. One company was even convicted for sending a person out for a repair in a customer’s home, and that employee decided to rob and murder the customer. That is maybe exaggerated, but the company is certainly responsible for damage caused accidentally by the employee.

 

[mmiller7]

You would think that an agreement for a food-ordering service that includes a forced arbitration clause would only apply to the food-ordering service and not the separate yet owned by the same company's ride-hailing service. Yet somehow, here we are.

Any sane person might think, but nope.

Much like the Disney one where they argued that because of a Disney+ trial someone couldn't sue over their spouse having an in-person injury and then death at one of their physical parks....tho they eventually backed off after a worldwide PR nightmare was brewing https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/busi...on-wrongful-death-lawsuit-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[mmiller7]

You are totally mistaken. By hiring the driver, Uber as a company takes on the responsibility in almost every case. One company was even convicted for sending a person out for a repair in a customer’s home, and that employee decided to rob and murder the customer. That is maybe exaggerated, but the company is certainly responsible for damage caused accidentally by the employee.

I 100% agree, but Uber also takes the position "those aren't employees, they are independent contractors we just connect you to" so they can get out of all kinds of stuff

 

[wondering22334455]

I know one guy in the process of suing UberEats, because they CLAIMED to do background checks on workers, but don't. Apparently the ubereats guy may ejaculated into their food. Turns out the delivery guy has previous convictions for doing this to colleagues at work and has served prison time for food tampering.

But Ubereats tried to say they weren't responsible, the customer should "have due diligence" inspecting food, so anything wrong with it is their fault AND tried to claim someone putting their sperm into takeaway food "doesn't cause long term harm, therefore there is no case for damages"

Uber have spunked (pun intended) tens of thousands fighting to have the case thrown out, as apparently they condone human semen in your mcdonalds/curry/KFC etc.

Same thing happened when uber hired convicted violent felons, rapists, murderers etc. Uber was 100% on the criminals side. Tried to blame the customers. Because if you get into an Uber vehicle, apparently you should be prepared to be raped and killed. All part of the service.

 

[adrianovaroli]

And now we know why Disney said "We admit nothing but will drop the suit".

This is abominable. In a sane universe, this would trigger making these clauses illegal, but we know how it's going to go.

In a sane universe, following the basic rules of capitalism and free markets that I'm told really actually for sure I pinky-promise exist, people would simply stop giving these companies money and the Invisible Hand of the Market would force ethical behavior.

Alas, it seems something's amiss here. Maybe I heard wrong from these capitalists.

 

[raschumacher]

The daughter doing it is really just set dressing to how bullshit all of this is. Keep going to SCOTUS. It’s time to readdress Concepcion with a horrible.

^Apparently something was lost in translation from the original Gibberish.

 

[raschumacher]

If you want to start fixing this, vote Democrat for every office in every election. Nothing else will help.

 

[Griking]

They could sue the driver and win, and never see a penny with which to pay their medical expenses.

And while I agree, that doesn't make it Uber's fault.

 

[Griking]

"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.

So because I haven't visited the site for a while and then returned makes my opinion less valid?

 

[Griking]

In that case arbitration should result in “Uber is guilty as sin” and if not, the arbitrator should be sued for all he has.

No, it should result in the drivers is guilty as sin.

 

[adrianovaroli]

And while I agree, that doesn't make it Uber's fault.

If I fuck up at my job, my company takes the blame, not me personally. My company may well fire me, but they're responsible before clients. The purpose of suing Uber -at least for medical expenses- is or should be to be able to afford paying those expenses. If you want revenge or punishment against a dumbass driver, go ahead. Uber is, or should be, responsible. That they do everything they can to pass the blame but keep any profits is preposterous. That we still use them is even worse.

 

[adrianovaroli]

So because I haven't visited the site for a while and then returned makes my opinion less valid?

No, your opinion being

No, it should result in the drivers is guilty as sin.

is what makes it less valid. I mean, it's certainly an opinion you got there. Goes against everything corporations should be, and instead defends the powerful against the individual, but it's an opinion. It may even be actual current reality. Doesn't mean you need to go defend it.

 

[Lord Bobbymort]

Dearest Uber: Disney tried this very recently and got smacked. These are two entirely differing businesses, they need two different agreements. Agreeing to someone giving you previously cooked food slowly and expensively should not have the same agreement as taking a ride with a complete stranger - those are not the same things.

 

[gnasher729]

I 100% agree, but Uber also takes the position "those aren't employees, they are independent contractors we just connect you to" so they can get out of all kinds of stuff

That’s what they claim. Doesnt mean it’s the truth. And “they are contractors we connect you to” is nonsense. As a contractor I was always working for the client.

 

[burkoJames]

In that case arbitration should result in “Uber is guilty as sin” and if not, the arbitrator should be sued for all he has.

A) Uber should be liable, to what degree depends on a lot more questions of what knowledge Uber had or could have had, but there should exist liability.

B) In the real world, the ability to establish any liability for Uber is limited due to a business model designed to take advantage of the law to capture most of the money but incur the least risk of liability. A rational world would consider that an unconscionable balance of power, but the real world isn't rational. Outside of the question of if arbiters should be able to be sued, We should not be frivolously suing arbiters because we don't like the law. That only makes worse the impacts of the congested courts - barriers to the access of justice because of costs and length of process, as well as over-worked judges looking to clear the case load rather than administer justice.

 

[SinclairZX81]

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.

I agree absolutely and completely. So don't agree to the pages long contract in order to get the simple product or service.

If you don't think that purchasing that simple product or service should require a pages-long contract, then don't agree to one.

You're enabling the continuance of this BS situation every time you click "I agree."

 

[AdamWill]

Wait, did Uber actually kind of admit that their newer ToS is potentially invalid? Does this mean anyone who signed only that version of the ToS could argue it is invalid?

No, that's not how the law works. In cases like this you're allowed to make arguments like "if the court holds that part X of the contract is invalid, our fallback argument is Y", and that does not count as an admission that X is actually invalid.

 

[SinclairZX81]

That type of agreement shouldn't be legal in the first place. Signing away your legal right to trial should not be possible. Signing up to order food shouldn't mean you can't sue a company when they injure you with a car. Watching The Simpsons online shouldn't mean your family doesn't get to file a suit in court if that company kills you in one of their properties.

Binding arbitration has limited to no appeal rights and the arbitrator is being paid by the corporate defendant. The fact that you can be forced into a process that favors the organization that did you harm by tapping "I agree" in an app is a solid indictment of the shortcomings of American consumer protection laws.

I agree. Absolutely. Completely. No argument whatsoever.

So don't tap "I agree" on the app that asks you to give away those rights to use their service.

Yes, it means you won't get your shiny thing right this moment. "But daddy, I want it now," is no reason to stop thinking.

Don't like the contract? Don't agree to it.

Don't understand the contract? Don't agree to it.

Too drunk to read the contract? Don't agree to it.

See a pages-long contract that you can't be bothered to read, because it's stupid to require one to purchase a simple product or service? Don't agree to it.

Stop agreeing to things that take your rights away because "it's convenient" and then turn around and whine that "it's so unfair."

No, such contracts shouldn't be legal. Yes, Congress should do something about it. But, right now, they are and Congress hasn't. So you have to use your brain. You do.

 

[RobStow]

It's quite incredible, isn't it? That ONE lawsuit has many people convinced that frivolous lawsuits are commonplace and totally clogging up the courts.

If you ask people who think "America has so many frivolous lawsuits" to name them, they'll say the McDonald's coffee case and literally not a single other.

In reality it's more like someone suing Panera for putting an utterly absurd amount of caffeine in lemonade, unlabeled, such that a couple free refills of the large size on a hot summer literally killed a guy.

I hate when life imitates satire. "They have one called the Meat Tornado"

I once regularly read a web site dedicated to frivolous lawsuits, complete with links to sources, quotes from court documents, etc. It has been a few years but I would guess they added about a dozen cases per month. And, yes, they had the infamous McDonald's coffee case ... which is probably what led me to stumble across that web site in the first place.

I have no idea what percentage of lawsuits filed are frivolous because:
1.) I have no idea how many suits get filed every month.
2.) For several reasons I doubt that web site presented a representative sample. Among other things, one of their sources was their readers, via a mechanism for readers to tell them about lawsuits they had heard about. And I'm sure they only published the most salacious or entertaining things they found, not the mundane ones.
3.) IIRC, the cases they added were not all contemporary - they often added old cases that someone had turned up.

I think I found that web site about 347 years ago while trying to get details about the McDonald's case while I was participating in an Ars discussion about coffee - how to brew it, perfect temperatures, etc - that probably had nothing to do with the Ars article that spawned the discussion. You all know how that happens.

 

[s73v3r]

Forced arbitration is bullshit and shouldn't be allowed, but what role does Uber have in this accident?

It's their fucking service. They're responsible for their driver. The idea that they're not responsible is complete fucking fantasy.

 

[s73v3r]

"How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?" Georgia McGinty was quoted as saying"

By reading what you were agreeing to

Tell me exactly why you think that outcome happening is the slightest fucking bit reasonable.

 

[s73v3r]

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.

Or, you could stop bootlicking and carrying water for these companies, and agree that we need to use the force of government to stop this from ever happening again.

 

[Janeazy]

You would think that an agreement for a food-ordering service that includes a forced arbitration clause would only apply to the food-ordering service and not the separate yet owned by the same company's ride-hailing service. Yet somehow, here we are.

soon if you agree to a silly Google Maps or new Android version update, means a Waymo can drive you off a cliff and they'll get away with it! Or Gmail can just use your emails for training, sell your data or even better— build companies w/ AI that compete with your full line of businesses!

 

[s73v3r]

Then, by strict interpretation, we're okay with these agreements.

No, we are not. That does not hold water.

They're fair, because we've deemed them fair.

Again, fucking wrong. "Agreements" you don't have the chance to negotiate are not fair. End of fucking story.

It's as simple as that. You agreed to their terms for the convenience it gave you, and now you have to abide by those terms.

In what POSSIBLE world is this "unfair"?

When did we have the chance to negotiate these terms? And no, just saying no is not negotiation.

Your argument boils down to "people shouldn't actually have to think about what they're agreeing to." Is that the hill you're really willing to die on here?

No, it isn't. The argument is that what a company says, goes, shouldn't be reality.

My argument is, "people should think for themselves and decide whether what they're agreeing to is really worth the convenience." Is that really what you're fighting against?

You are not, in any fucking meaning of the word, arguing that "people should think for themselves." You are arguing that companies should be able to get away with whatever they want. You are putting the blame on victims, and not the asshat companies that are forcing these terms.

 

[graylshaped]

Uber boot-licker has entered the chat.

One can advocate for tort reform without also advocating for assholes.

To be clear, one-sided forced arbitration is NOT a reasonable approach to tort reform.

 

[s73v3r]

I agree with you POV, and also agree that overturning these agreements only helps to promote an irresponsible mindset on consumers and companies.

What the fuck is the "irresponsible mindset" this promotes here?

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?

You sure that the arbitrators being bought and paid for by the companies has nothing to do with it?

 

[FreeRangeOrganicSoyLatteCappuccino]

In that case arbitration should result in “Uber is guilty as sin” and if not, the arbitrator should be sued for all he has.

What happens in arbitration? Can't Uber still be found guilty?

 

[TracyInRTP]

Forced arbitration is bullshit and shouldn't be allowed, but what role does Uber have in this accident? The person knowingly 'hired' an independent contractor through the Uber app to drive them and got in an accident.

It sounds like you are comparing Uber to something like Angie's List. I have a hole in my roof and need it fixed. AL shows me 20+ workers to do the job. I contact ones of my choice and hire an independent contractor to come do the work. Any agreement is between me and the worker.

But that isn't how Uber works is it? You don't get any ability to "review" that "independent contractor" and make a selection. Uber is more like buying a new house from DR Horton. If a toilet or light switch doesn't work, DR Horton doesn't respond with "the plumber and electrician were independent contractors and we have no responsibility". I have zero knowledge of the relationship between DR Horton and the people working on my house. I just know DR Horton said they would build me a house. Just like Uber says they will get me from point A to point B.

 

[s73v3r]

And while I agree, that doesn't make it Uber's fault.

It absolutely the fuck does when 1). The driver is working for Uber, and 2). Uber here is fighting tooth and nail to not be responsible for the actions of their agent.