BOSTON (Legal Newsline) - Uber adequately informed users that any negligence lawsuits against the ride-sharing giant would be sent to arbitration.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court reached that ruling June 7 in a closely watched case that challenged Uber's "clickwrap" agreement that forced plaintiff William Good to agree to arbitration.
Amicus briefs against Uber's argument came from both the Massachusetts and national trial lawyer associations, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association supported Uber.
Good could not keep using Uber until he clicked a checkbox indicating he had read and agreed to the terms and pressed a button that said confirm.
"The interface was focused and uncluttered; it clearly alerted Good multiple times, in prominent boldface text, that the purpose of the blocking screen was to notify Good of Uber's terms of use," Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt wrote.
"It encouraged Good to review those terms and provided an identifiable hyperlink directly to the full text of the terms of use document. We conclude that these and other features of Uber's 'clickwrap' contract formation process put Good on reasonable notice of Uber's terms of use, one of which was the agreement to arbitrate disputes..."
Litigation is a concern for Uber, which is targeted for the actions of its drivers. Sexual assault cases make headlines, and in Nevada the company has spent millions advancing a ballot initiative that would cap contingency fees at 20%.
But the company is also sued over car accidents, like in Good's case. He joined Uber in 2013 and on April 25, 2021, when he was presented with a blocking screen that said Uber had updated its terms of use.
Good clicked the checkbox indicating he'd read and reviewed the new terms. Five days later, he was in a wreck while a passenger and broke his neck. He is now quadriplegic.
He sued in Suffolk County Superior Court, where Uber moved to compel arbitration rather than risk a sympathetic jury and higher litigation costs. Good argued he did not have reasonable notice of Uber's arbitration clause, and a trial judge agreed.
But the Supreme Court overruled. It said Uber's blocking pop-up screen referenced the terms of use at least four times, no matter whether the terms themselves were presented as prominently.
"The link to the terms of use was not buried on a cluttered screen or presented inconspicuously at the tail end of a cumbersome registration and payment process," Wendlandt wrote.
"The interface addressed only the terms of use and accompanying privacy notice. Nothing distracted from the interface's singular focus on providing notice of, and obtaining assent to, the terms of use, along with acknowledgment of the privacy notice."
Justice Scott Kafker disagreed, writing customers have flushed away their rights to their day in court by checking a box required to continue using the app.
"The terms and conditions that Uber seeks to impose through the click of a box differ greatly from what a user would ordinarily expect in such a simple transaction," he wrote.
"(N)othing on the blocking pop-up screen alerted the user as to the scope and substance of the terms."