Uber beats crash victims’ attempt to try case in court instead of arbitration

A married couple can't sue Uber over severe injuries they suffered in a 2022 car accident because of a mandatory arbitration provision in the ride-sharing company's terms of use, according to a ruling issued by the New Jersey Superior Court appellate division. In November 2023, a lower court denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiffs Georgia and John McGinty. But the lower-court ruling was reversed on September 20 in a unanimous decision by three appellate court judges. Georgia McGinty had agreed to Uber's arbitration clause long before the accident. But the couple challenged the terms in part because they say their minor daughter, then 12, was the one who clicked the most recent terms agreement when the girl ordered food through Uber Eats. Those newer terms were also allegedly less specific about users waiving the right to a jury trial. The September 20 ruling says:

Uber's digital records show that on January 8, 2022, Georgia logged into her Uber account using her password, checked the box next to the statement "I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use," and pressed "Confirm." In their motion opposition, plaintiffs asserted that it was not Georgia but rather their minor daughter who checked that box and clicked the "Confirm" button—even though it required attesting to Uber that she was at least eighteen years old. Plaintiffs claim that their daughter, while using Georgia's phone and with Georgia's permission, confirmed her agreement to the December [2021] Terms before ordering food for plaintiffs to be delivered to them through Uber Eats. The December Terms to which Georgia agreed—either by herself or through her daughter using her Uber account—contain an arbitration provision. That agreement provides disputes that may arise between Georgia and Uber, including disputes concerning auto accidents or personal injuries, will be resolved through binding arbitration "and not in a court of law." The agreement also provides that any disputes over arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator.

"We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable," judges wrote.

Lower court said Uber terms were too vague

The case came to the appellate court on appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. The lower court found that Uber's updated terms "fail[ed] to clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum," making it unclear that "arbitration is a substitute for the right to seek relief in our court system." While an earlier version of Uber's terms contained an express jury waiver provision, the newer version did not. The lower court held that the newer agreement "lacks any specificity on what the resolution would look like or what the alternative to such resolution might be." Uber argued that even if the newer terms are invalid, the earlier terms would still require arbitration of the dispute and that Georgia McGinty can't escape her agreement with Uber by claiming that her daughter agreed to the newer terms on her behalf. Despite the newer agreement not using the word "jury," the appellate court said that legal precedent "does not require specific jury trial language to accomplish a waiver of rights." Judges said the Uber provision requiring disputes to be handled in arbitration "and not in a court of law... clearly and unambiguously evidences a waiver of plaintiffs' right to pursue any claims against Uber in a court of law and obligates plaintiffs to resolve their claims through binding arbitration." "While 'jury' is no longer explicitly used in the updated December Terms, magic words are not required for enforceability and the clause clearly intimates that disputes are resolved through arbitration," the court said. The question of whether the couple's daughter was capable of agreeing to the terms must be decided by an arbitrator, according to the ruling:

Georgia certified that her daughter was "capable," would frequently order food, and she and John were preoccupied with packing, which supports the inference that the daughter acted knowingly on Georgia's behalf. In summary, the Arbitration Agreement is valid and delegates the threshold question of the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator. Therefore, Georgia's reliance on her daughter's minority to raise an infancy defense shall be determined by the arbitrator.

Plaintiff: Rights shouldn’t be “waived by me ordering food”

The McGintys spoke to the BBC after the appeals court ruled in Uber's favor. "The McGintys argue they had not understood they were forfeiting their right to sue the company," the BBC wrote. "They told the BBC the most recent time the terms were agreed to was when their daughter, then 12, had accepted them prior to ordering a pizza on Uber Eats." "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. Because of the ruling, any financial payout the McGintys obtain from Uber will have to be ordered by an arbitrator instead of a court. "The court concluded that the plaintiff herself—not her teenage daughter—agreed to Uber's Terms of Use on multiple occasions, including the arbitration agreement," Uber said in a statement provided to Ars today. "More than once, a full-screen pop-up message notified her of updates to the Terms of Use. These updated terms required her to agree to them before she could proceed to use the app." Uber also had its arbitration agreement upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in June 2024 in a case involving a passenger who was paralyzed in an accident. The top Massachusetts court ruled that Uber's "clickwrap" agreement gave the plaintiff "reasonable notice of Uber's terms of use, one of which was the agreement to arbitrate disputes."

Severe injuries

The McGintys were in the back seat of a car on March 31, 2022, when Uber driver Jia Wen Zheng "ran a red light and t-boned" another vehicle, the New Jersey court ruling said. Zheng is also a defendant in the case. "Georgia sustained cervical and lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, a protruding hernia, traumatic injuries to her abdominal wall, pelvic floor, and other physical injuries," the ruling said. "She has undergone numerous surgeries and other invasive procedures. Georgia, a matrimonial attorney, was unable to work between the date of the accident and April 1, 2023." John McGinty "sustained a fractured sternum and severe fractures to his left arm and wrist," judges wrote. "He underwent open reduction and internal fixation with a bone graft to address the arm fractures, and has diminished use and sensation in his left wrist." John McGinty told the BBC that they "accumulated a tremendous amount of medical debt" and still need more medical treatment. Georgia McGinty signed up for an Uber account in June 2015, which required agreeing to the terms of use. She also agreed to a January 2021 update to the terms in April 2021. "Uber's records show that Georgia placed a check in the box next to the statement 'I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use' and clicked the 'Confirm' button related to the January Terms. Georgia does not dispute that she agreed to the January Terms," the ruling said. When either Georgia or her daughter agreed to the subsequent terms update in early 2022, they had to confirm their agreement or stop using the app. "On January 8, 2022, Georgia was presented with a pop-up blocking screen in her Uber app presenting the updated December Terms. Uber's app was designed so that a user—such as Georgia—could not continue using the account to access Uber's services unless and until the updated Terms of Use were agreed to," judges wrote. The pop-up stated in large, clear type, "We encourage you to read our updated Terms in full," and provided "two clickable hyperlinks to Uber's Terms of Use and Privacy Notice, which were underlined and in bright blue text," the ruling said.