A New Jersey couple who were seriously injured when an Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another vehicle have lost their lawsuit against the company.
John and Georgia McGinty said Uber is enforcing the arbitration agreement after their daughter clicked “I agree” when presented with the latest terms and conditions when ordering food on her mother’s Uber Eats account. claims.
Uber said Georgia McGuinty’s account on its app received several “full-screen pop-ups” requiring users to accept updated terms and conditions before accessing the service.
This comes amid increased scrutiny over the terms of major technology platforms. This summer, Disney initially argued that the terms and conditions agreed to for its Disney+ streaming service by a widower would protect it from a wrongful death lawsuit filed over his wife’s death after eating at a Disney World restaurant. His lawyer argued that there was, and faced backlash.
Last month, a New Jersey appellate court sided with Uber against the McGuintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims rather than litigating them in court. Ta.
The court’s opinion, issued on Sept. 20, says Uber’s terms of service include the terms of service, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked to accept the updated terms of service months before the accident. It said the arbitration clause was “valid and enforceable.” Uber said Georgia McGuinty had previously agreed to the terms.
John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were seriously injured in March 2022, causing physical injuries including broken bones, as well as emotional and financial damages, according to court documents. About a year later, the couple filed a complaint against Uber.
In a statement to the Guardian, the McGintys said they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the Court of Appeal’s decision, adding it “exacerbates the pain and suffering” they have experienced since the crash.
The couple goes on to argue that large companies like Uber have been subject to “aggrieved consumers’ lawsuits in court because of contractual language embedded in more than a dozen pages of user agreements for services unrelated to the one in question.” He added that he was “appalled” that he was able to avoid being sued. Consumer harm. ”
They asked, “What rights may be waived when dozens of pages appear on an iPhone screen while ordering food delivery, and how severe can the consequences be? It is impossible for anyone to understand what is going on.
Uber attempted to force arbitration and dismiss the couple’s lawsuit, citing that Georgia McGuinty had agreed to Uber’s terms of service, which included an arbitration clause, months before the accident.
According to a court ruling issued last week, Uber will update its terms of service in December 2021, giving Georgia McGinty, who has used Uber for both Uber rides and Uber Eats since 2015, a “click wrap.” A contract is said to have been presented. In January 2022, her Uber app posted updated terms to agree to, including an arbitration clause.
Uber records show that someone using Georgia McGuinty’s account that day checked a box to indicate that they had reviewed and accepted the updated terms and conditions and that they were at least 18 years old. and clicked “Confirm”.
But lawyers representing the McGuintys claim the couple do not remember seeing the “click box” on the date in question, January 8, and that their then-minor daughter supervised the food delivery. I’m guessing I must have clicked inside from Uber Eats that night while my parents were getting ready for a ski trip.
The McGintys remember their daughter asking if she could order food and her daughter replying that she did, with or without Georgia McGinty’s assistance. She then monitored the progress of the delivery on her mother’s cell phone, at which point consent was provided by checking the box, Uber said.
Uber’s motion to compel arbitration was initially denied by a lower court in New Jersey, but Uber appealed the decision and filed a lawsuit in Georgia, even though it argued that it was the daughter who actually agreed to the updated terms.・Mr. McGuinty argued that he could not escape from the agreement. The account had previously agreed to terms that also included an arbitration clause.
Lawyers for the McGuintys said in court documents that they were not given a chance to respond to the latter allegation.
After months of legal wrangling, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court decided to reverse the lower court’s decision. The ruling said the agreement “agreed to by Georgia or her minor daughter while using a cell phone” was “valid and enforceable.”
The court added that there was “no ambiguity” in the arbitration under which Georgia McGuinty agreed to Uber’s terms. “The arbitration agreement is valid and delegates threshold issues regarding the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator,” the order said.
Asked for comment, an Uber spokesperson referred the Guardian to the decision itself, stating that the court found that “the plaintiff herself (and not her teenage daughter) had agreed to Uber’s terms and conditions, including the arbitration agreement, on multiple occasions.” He concluded that.
“On multiple occasions, a full-screen pop-up message notified users of updated terms of service and that these updated terms must be accepted by users before they can continue using the app.” added the spokesperson.
Lawyers representing the McGuintys said it was “another arbitration clause with seemingly limitless scope” and an example of the “erosion of consumer protections and rights.”
They are reviewing the decision and planning next steps, likely to petition the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The McGuintys’ dispute with Uber is the latest case to shine a light on the terms of use of a prominent technology platform.
After days of countless news stories surrounding Disney’s bid to use Disney+ terms to protect itself from lawsuits related to Disney World, the Hollywood giant later backtracked and announced its legal claims. was withdrawn, allowing the matter to proceed in court rather than in arbitration.
Online products such as Uber, available on mobile phones and apps, allow companies to “pack 50 pages of terms into a small box,” said personal injury lawyer Richard Staggard. According to him, many people click “I agree” without reading the terms and do not understand what they are agreeing to, and people do not have time to read long documents, especially if they want to use the product as soon as possible. It is said that there are many
David Horton, a law professor at the University of California School of Law who specializes in arbitration, said the case “illustrates how difficult it is for ordinary people to avoid waiving their right to sue in court.” Ta.
Research shows that these types of nuanced arbitration clauses are widespread, and more companies are using broad arbitration clauses in their user agreements, Horton said.
He calls this type of agreement an “unlimited arbitration clause.”
