The Massachusetts Supreme Courtroom says Uber can’t power prospects to arbitrate

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that Uber cannot compel customers to arbitrate.

According to The Boston Globe¸, Uber had asked potential passengers to agree to an online agreement before they could use the ridesharing application. This agreement, which most consumers likely did not read or understand, waived passengers’ right to file a lawsuit against the company.

However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said Uber did not adequately inform consumers of what exactly they signed when they agreed to the terms of the motion.

“Uber is unable to enforce the terms, including the arbitration agreement at issue here, against the plaintiffs,” wrote Judge Scott L. Kafker.

ArsTechnica finds that lead plaintiff, Christopher Kauders, is legally blind. When he signed up for Uber a few years ago, he was guided through three screens filled with information. One titled “Link Payment” offered users a variety of ways to pay for their Uber trips. However, at the bottom of this page was the message: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy.”

Uber app; Image courtesy of Freestocks Photos via Pixabay,

While users could click a link to view its rules and expectations, they didn’t have to look through them either.

According to ArsTechnica, at no point did Kauders have to click a button that said “I agree” to proceed with creating his Uber account.

Kauders initially sued Uber after multiple drivers denied him service because Kauders was accompanied by a registered service dog.

A lower court ordered in 2018 that the Kauders case should be submitted to arbitration. However, a judge joined Uber and said that the company’s road workers were independent contractors. As a result, Uber cannot be held responsible for their refusal.

However, Kauders’ attorneys appealed the earlier court ruling, claiming that Kauders had never agreed to waive his right to litigation.

And the Massachusetts Supreme Court has since sided with Kauder’s team.

“Uber’s terms and conditions did not constitute a contract with the plaintiffs,” the judges wrote, saying that it was “by no means obvious that registering via an app for driving services would go hand in hand with the extensive terms and conditions contained here.” . ”

“In fact,” the court said, “certain terms and conditions may literally require an individual user to sign their life as Uber may not be liable if something happened to the user during one of those trips.”

The bank noted that Uber requires its shooters to agree to Driver Terms and Conditions before they start work. In fact, Uber has drivers push a big button that says “YES, I agree” on at least two separate screens.

“The contrast between notifying drivers and notifying users is significant,” the judges said. “As Uber is undoubtedly known, most users who register through mobile applications do not read the terms of use or terms of use contained in the applications.”

“The touchscreens of Internet contact law must reflect the touchstones of regular contract law.”


According to the Court, Uber can’t hold users on terms they probably haven’t read

SJC: Uber’s online contract didn’t make it clear to consumers what rights they were giving up

Comments are closed.