Oct 06, 2024 08:00:00

Couple involved in Uber accident laments being unable to sue Uber Eats because they agreed to the company's terms of service

A couple who were involved in an accident while using the ride-hailing service

Uber sued the company, but found out that they could not sue the company because they had agreed to the terms of use of Uber Eats , a meal delivery service operated by the same company. This case has led to criticism of companies that set complex terms of use that make important information difficult to understand, and then bring in the terms of use of a different service.

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms | New Jersey | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/new-jersey-uber-eats-car-crash

An Uber driver ran a red light and crashed. A NJ couple can't sue thanks to Uber Eats terms | The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uber-crash-lawsuit-forced-arbitration-b2622363.html#comments-area

The New Jersey couple who filed the lawsuit against Uber are John and Georgia McGinty, who were in a car provided by Uber when the driver ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle, leaving them with serious injuries that required bone grafts.

The couple filed a lawsuit against Uber about a year after the accident, claiming they had suffered physical injuries, including broken bones, as well as emotional and financial damages.

Uber, however, argued that McGinty had agreed to Uber's terms of service several months before the accident, which included a clause in the terms of service that allowed the company to use arbitration rather than go to court if there was a dispute. Uber argued that the matter should have been resolved through arbitration and that the lawsuit should have been dismissed.

Uber claims that Uber updated its terms of service to include an arbitration clause in December 2021, and that Georgia McGinty, who has used both Uber and Uber Eats since 2015, agreed to the terms on the Uber app in January 2022. Uber's records show that someone who used Georgia McGinty's account reviewed and agreed to the terms, checked a box indicating they were over 18, and clicked 'Confirm.'

McGinty denied any wrongdoing, but an investigation revealed that his daughter may have agreed to the terms of service when she ordered food from her parent's Uber Eats account. She said she was 12 years old at the time and agreed to the terms without checking the terms.

Uber's motion for arbitration was dismissed by a lower court in 2023, but Uber appealed the ruling. After months of legal battles, the higher court overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of Uber, which argued that 'Uber's arbitration clause is valid and enforceable' by arguing that 'the daughter cannot escape the agreement by claiming that she agreed to the terms of use.'

McGinty's lawyers said the ruling represents an 'erosion of consumer protections and rights' and have indicated they will appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

'With a service like Uber, the company is giving you 50 pages of documents to read on a tiny smartphone,' said personal injury lawyer Richard Staggert. 'A lot of people just click 'I accept' without reading the terms and conditions and don't know what they're agreeing to.'

David Horton, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who specializes in arbitration, said the case 'shows how hard it is for ordinary people to fight in court,' and noted that more and more companies are using these kinds of detailed arbitration clauses.

'We are surprised and saddened by the Court of Appeal's decision. We never thought that ordering food could mean waiving our constitutional right to a trial. We are horrified that we can no longer sue in court because of language buried in dozens of pages of terms and conditions for a service that has nothing to do with the service that caused our injury,' the McGintys said.

This case has been compared to the case of a woman who died after suffering an allergic reaction at a Disney resort restaurant, whose husband's lawsuit was dismissed because the woman had agreed to the terms of service for Disney+, which included an arbitration clause. In that case, too, Disney waived its right to arbitration and decided to fight the case in court, because the terms of service of a completely different service from the same operator were found to affect the important issue of the lawsuit.

Disney withdraws request to drop wrongful death lawsuit over Disney+ terms of service agreement - GIGAZINE