# Opt Out Of Arbitration Again For The Updated Platform Access Agreement Updated As Of January 6, 2020



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!

Here's the relevant section of the agreement:

Send email to the following email address: [email protected]

Send your
Name
Email address associated with your account
Phone number associated with your account
And the city and state in which you reside

If everything goes well you'll receive an email reply to that opt out email from 
*Opt out of Uber Arbitration Provision <[email protected]> *

If you do not receive that email reply double check the email address you sent it to and if necessary try again.

Here's the relavant section of the agreement with instructions for opting out.

13.8. Your Right To Opt Out Of This Arbitration Provision
(a) Agreeing to this Arbitration Provision is not a mandatory condition of your contractual relationship with us. If you do not want to be subject to this Arbitration Provision, you may opt out of this Arbitration Provision (subject to the pending litigation provision in Section 13.2, and the limitations set forth in this Section 13.8). To do so, within 30 days of the date that this Agreement is electronically accepted by you, you must send an electronic email from the email address associated with your driver account to [email protected], stating your intent to opt out of this Arbitration Provision, as well as your name, the phone number associated with your driver account, and the city in which you reside.


----------



## Sepelion (Oct 28, 2019)

Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


Then that's actually perfection because you won't be bound by arbitration and you can sue 'em.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!
> 
> Here's the relevant section of the agreement:
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


One would think but I have to say that is not true. 5 years and going strong here&#129335;&#127996;


----------



## Uber Work Hero (Sep 3, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!
> 
> Here's the relevant section of the agreement:
> 
> ...


I got the email, but my access to the app hasn't been restored it's still trying to get me to agree to both the Platform and Indemnity agreement.

How long does it take before they recognize the opt out and allow you back on the app?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Uber Work Hero said:


> I got the email, but my access to the app hasn't been restored it's still trying to get me to agree to both the Platform and Indemnity agreement.
> 
> How long does it take before they recognize the opt out and allow you back on the app?
> View attachment 399285


There are three you have to agree to this time. First is a pair the Platform Agreement, the Indemnity agreement come as a package you have to agree to,and then later for me came the Fare Addendum I had to agree to. Once I agreed to the Fare addendum it went straight through.

The first package came in last night when I went to check on something so I agreed opted out and closed the app. Just now I needed to check something else out and the Fare addendum agreement popped up and I agreed and it went right through.



Wonkytonk said:


> There are three you have to agree to this time. First is a pair the Platform Agreement, the Indemnity agreement come as a package you have to agree to,and then later for me came the Fare Addendum I had to agree to. Once I agreed to the Fare addendum it went straight through.
> 
> The first package came in last night when I went to check on something so I agreed opted out and closed the app. Just now I needed to check something else out and the Fare addendum agreement popped up and I agreed and it went right through.


Actually I closed the app out at that point, and went back in just now and it wanted me to agree to the fare addendum again. When I did it made me take a picture, but went into the app after that.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


Oh bullshit


----------



## Uber Work Hero (Sep 3, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> There are three you have to agree to this time. First is a pair the Platform Agreement, the Indemnity agreement come as a package you have to agree to,and then later for me came the Fare Addendum I had to agree to. Once I agreed to the Fare addendum it went straight through.
> 
> The first package came in last night when I went to check on something so I agreed opted out and closed the app. Just now I needed to check something else out and the Fare addendum agreement popped up and I agreed and it went right through.
> 
> ...


I misunderstood. I thought drivers sent the opt out e-mail first and then didn't have to accept the agreements in the app.

Do you think I should send another e-mail now that I've agreed or the e-mail before I agreed is fine?

(Thanks for replying!)


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Uber Work Hero said:


> I misunderstood. I thought drivers sent the opt out e-mail first and then didn't have to accept the agreements in the app.
> 
> Do you think I should send another e-mail now that I've agreed or the e-mail before I agreed is fine?
> 
> (Thanks for replying!)


Unfortunately you have to agree and then you have 30 days to opt out. I wouldn't hurt to send another email especially if it gives you sense of assurance, and technically I suppose they could insist you were opting out of the previous agreement too late so go ahead and send another one and note in the email you're opting out of the agreement dated what was it 6 January? Check it before you send.


----------



## Lynxtheclown (Jan 9, 2020)

Who did i piss off i got like 3 of them lol


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Uber Work Hero said:


> I got the email, but my access to the app hasn't been restored it's still trying to get me to agree to both the Platform and Indemnity agreement.
> 
> How long does it take before they recognize the opt out and allow you back on the app?
> View attachment 399285


You have to agree to all of the addendums and agreements. You're not opting out of those. You're opting out of the arbitration provision. So you agree to all of the agreements and addendums and then you have 30 days to send the email to opt out of arbitration and that allows you to either sue them if need be, you can still choose to go through arbitration oh, and it also allows you to join class actions. So by you opting out of arbitration it opens up your options as far as legal recourse goes



Lynxtheclown said:


> View attachment 399315
> 
> 
> Who did i piss off i got like 3 of them lol


We all got three. I got them all at the same time but then again I'm sure all of us drivers have pissed them off


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!
> 
> Here's the relevant section of the agreement:
> 
> ...


Only works if you opted out on every single one. 
Miss one and it invalidates all of them...


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Only works if you opted out on every single one.
> Miss one and it invalidates all of them...


I do not believe that to be true for a second.

The last agreement had specific language stating the previous arbitration status with respect to having had opted out of arbitration would remain in effect however you could opt out of arbitration for the new stuff. I question the legality of even that.

Unless I missed it this one states nothing about previous status. I'm no lawyer but what does it hurt to opt out and have proof you did? Nothing, right. Worst case scenario you're right. Better case I am and you've opted out protecting your right to sue them.


----------



## WNYuber (Oct 5, 2019)

95% of drivers don't even read *The Updated Platform Access Agreement* and don't understand what the word "arbitration" means
#notmensa


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

WNYuber said:


> 95% of drivers don't even read *The Updated Platform Access Agreement* and don't understand what the word "arbitration" means
> #notmensa


I agree. We should totally talk about it a lot more.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I do not believe that to be true for a second.
> 
> The last agreement had specific language stating the previous arbitration status with respect to having had opted out of arbitration would remain in effect however you could opt out of arbitration for the new stuff. I question the legality of even that.
> 
> Unless I missed it this one states nothing about previous status. I'm no lawyer but what does it hurt to opt out and have proof you did? Nothing, right. Worst case scenario you're right. Better case I am and you've opted out protecting your right to sue them.


(c) If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of 
your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate 
disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing 
arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect.

Reading the entire document is helpful. 
If you failed to opt out of even one of these you are bound by that one you did not opt out of... "that existing arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect."


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> (c) If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of
> your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate
> disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing
> arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect.
> ...


Again. Unless I missed it I did not see any statement to the effect of what you're stating in the current agreement. If you have please feel free to share it.

In the absence of that that opt out is effective moving forward with the one exception they currently carved out which is the current litigation exception.

And again. Whether your are correct, in the current absence of any written evidence to that effect in the current agreement, and information appearing to be contrary to that interpretation when contrasted with previous agreements, or I am correctly interpreting the current agreement in the absence of any legal background, it harms nothing to opt out, and may well protect driver's legal right to sue.

Since that's the case it's a no brainer to go ahead and opt out.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

Thanks, OP.
I didn't opt out when I joined. I'm going to now.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Again. Unless I missed it I did not see any statement to the effect of what you're stating in the current agreement. If you have please feel free to share it.
> 
> In the absence of that that opt out is effective moving forward with the one exception they currently carved out which is the current litigation exception.
> 
> ...


Are you daft or illiterate. 
I literally posted sub section c) of 13.8 from the January 6th 2020 agreement. 
****



Illini said:


> Thanks, OP.
> I didn't opt out when I joined. I'm going to now.


If you didn't then, you can't now. 
Read 13.8 subsection c) as posted already here.



Wonkytonk said:


> Again. Unless I missed it I did not see any statement to the effect of what you're stating in the current agreement. If you have please feel free to share it.
> 
> In the absence of that that opt out is effective moving forward with the one exception they currently carved out which is the current litigation exception.
> 
> ...


Again, since you are terrible at reading and feel free to login to your driver profile on the partners website and read it there as well.

(c) If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of
your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate
disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing
arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Are you daft or illiterate.
> I literally posted sub section c) of 13.8 from the January 6th 2020 agreement.
> @@@@


Yes you did I over looked it thinking it was the litigation exception portion.

I just went back and verified and that is the statement I saw in the last agreement but missed in this one. You are correct it is in this one.

So what. It still does not hurt anything to opt out of arbitration because as I said I question of the legality of that limitation.

As an example If your cell phone carrier makes any significant changes effecting you you can opt out of your cell phone contract without penalty. I'm willing to bet the same applies for Uber and Lyft when they make significant changes as every single agreement has proven to be.

Again it hurts nothing to opt out and may preserve your right to sue.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> Yes you did I over looked it thinking it was the litigation exception portion.
> 
> I just went back and verified and that is the statement I saw in the last agreement but missed in this one. You are correct it is in this one.
> 
> ...


Oh, I question the legality of binding arbitration agreements but the Supreme Court has refused to knock them down as have many lower appeals. 
In some states they are not legally binding and in others they are more powerful than victims rights... 
But, until Uber, specifically, is defeated on this matter at the Supreme Court level or federal legislation is passed making these types of agreements illegal, there is literally nothing you can do to opt out if you even missed one.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Oh, I question the legality of binding arbitration agreements but the Supreme Court has refused to knock them down as have many lower appeals.
> In some states they are not legally binding and in others they are more powerful than victims rights...
> But, until Uber, specifically, is defeated on this matter at the Supreme Court level or federal legislation is passed making these types of agreements illegal, there is literally nothing you can do to opt out if you even missed one.


I sent a few messages concerning this subject to a moderator so far. Specifically the point that had not found the paragraph you quoted before you brought it up. So thanks for having found it.

What confuses me about it is why they carved out the current litigation exception from opting out and then in addition included the standard disclaimer that the old arbitration status still holds.

They seem a contradiction to me.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Oh, I question the legality of binding arbitration agreements but the Supreme Court has refused to knock them down as have many lower appeals.
> In some states they are not legally binding and in others they are more powerful than victims rights...
> But, until Uber, specifically, is defeated on this matter at the Supreme Court level or federal legislation is passed making these types of agreements illegal, there is literally nothing you can do to opt out if you even missed one.





Wonkytonk said:


> Yes you did I over looked it thinking it was the litigation exception portion.
> 
> I just went back and verified and that is the statement I saw in the last agreement but missed in this one. You are correct it is in this one.
> 
> ...


And, no, if you are in a 2 year contract and they only change the things their contract states they can change without your approval (read those contracts people) you can't opt out without consequence. They can charge you for cancelation of your contract.

Only if they violate the terms of the contract they created (with the loopholes they include allowing for the to change terms and conditions without prior notice to you being required) would you have standing, in court, to fight the cancelation fee they will already have charged and reported to the credit bureaus upon receipt of your complaint and notice of litigation.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> And, no, if you are in a 2 year contract and they only change the things their contract states they can change without your approval (read those contracts people) you can't opt out without consequence. They can charge you for cancelation of your contract.
> 
> Only if they violate the terms of the contract they created (with the loopholes they include allowing for the to change terms and conditions without prior notice to you being required) would you have standing, in court, to fight the cancelation fee they will already have charged and reported to the credit bureaus upon receipt of your complaint and notice of litigation.


I do not believe this to be the case. I believe if they unilaterally make a material change to the terms of the contract (contract length, cost, etc) you can break free of the contract without consequence, and I believe that's controlled to a certain extent by laws in each state.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I do not believe this to be the case. I believe if they unilaterally make a material change to the terms of the contract (contract length, cost, etc) you can break free of the contract without consequence, and I believe that's controlled to a certain extent by laws in each state.


Read your contract with your phone carrier. 
You will find a subsection that grants them the ability to change terms and conditions. 
Is it limited? 
Yeah, they can't just say "oh, right now you have to pay us 5,000.00 per minute". 
But, they can change things like service fees or add charges to speak to customer care (not account questions per se, but other things)... 
They can decide to cap your usage speed (and this can take a truly unlimited data and make it 5gig per month). 
They can limit what towers your phone pings and or connection service levels (5g VS lte) even though you had a grandfathered unlimited... Etc.

Some of these they do through renewal contracts sure, but some they slip by in published but not requiring you even acknowledge the changes.

Federal requirements for privacy policy updates are the only reason you get those pop-up messages from Facebook or Twitter etal. 
But, so far, there is no federal guidelines for cellphone companies that eliminate the loopholes they specifically place in their contracts regarding changes to "terms and conditions" beyond such changes as would render the contract, effectively, as a new contract requiring you to re accept(and that is actually a matter of case law and precidents and not regulation)


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Read your contract with your phone carrier.
> You will find a subsection that grants them the ability to change terms and conditions.
> Is it limited?
> Yeah, they can't just say "oh, right now you have to pay us 5,000.00 per minute".
> ...


I don't think it's as bleak as all that, especially given the number of people who've gotten out of their contracts due to material changes, but I'm not a lawyer, so who knows.

I'm going to check with a friend who specializes in contract law. Thanks for your input.

Still, and for the record, whether the uber agreement says the previous arbitration agreement status holds or not I recommend everyone opt out of the current agreement. It doesn't hurt anything and may help preserve the right to sue.


----------



## Sariandan (Feb 3, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> (c) If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of
> your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate
> disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing
> arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect.


The way I and an attorney friend read this is that if you have an issue from prior to the new agreement and were not opted out of arbitration, you still must use arbitration to resolve that issue. But if you opt out now, you are not required to use arbitration for future issues.

Another attorney may have a differing view. So may a judge. YMMV.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> And, no, if you are in a 2 year contract and they only change the things their contract states they can change without your approval (read those contracts people) you can't opt out without consequence. They can charge you for cancelation of your contract.
> 
> Only if they violate the terms of the contract they created (with the loopholes they include allowing for the to change terms and conditions without prior notice to you being required) would you have standing, in court, to fight the cancelation fee they will already have charged and reported to the credit bureaus upon receipt of your complaint and notice of litigation.


Uber and Lyft violate their TOS every day.



Wonkytonk said:


> I do not believe this to be the case. I believe if they unilaterally make a material change to the terms of the contract (contract length, cost, etc) you can break free of the contract without consequence, and I believe that's controlled to a certain extent by laws in each state.


My lawyer created a way for all of his drivers to opt out of each new TOS compete with a BCC to the firm's admin email.

Uber is trying to slip new things into each TOS, including making you pay more for arbitration.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Sariandan said:


> The way I and an attorney friend read this is that if you have an issue from prior to the new agreement and were not opted out of arbitration, you still must use arbitration to resolve that issue. But if you opt out now, you are not required to use arbitration for future issues.
> 
> Another attorney may have a differing view. So may a judge. YMMV.


Thanks for the input.

If you don't mind, and if you guys discuss this again feel free to message me. I'm going to discuss with a contract lawyer friend of mine the next time we meet.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Sariandan said:


> The way I and an attorney friend read this is that if you have an issue from prior to the new agreement and were not opted out of arbitration, you still must use arbitration to resolve that issue. But if you opt out now, you are not required to use arbitration for future issues.
> 
> Another attorney may have a differing view. So may a judge. YMMV.


It doesn't say word one about "if you had a previous issue" 
It does, however, clearly say the previous arbitration agreement you were bound to (failed to opt out) remains in full affect.



nonononodrivethru said:


> Uber and Lyft violate their TOS every day.
> 
> 
> My lawyer created a way for all of his drivers to opt out of each new TOS compete with a BCC to the firm's admin email.
> ...


Show even one way they violate the TOS. 
I would be interested to see what your "lawyer" told you was a violation. 
Additionally why wod your lawyer need a BCC when a visible CC would make so much more reasonable sense.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

Geez they coming every few months now just agree & opt out nothing they send is enforceable there's so many illegal terms in their agreements that they're all in breach & not binding in one sentence they say something & the very next it says the opposite lol



Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> It doesn't say word one about "if you had a previous issue"
> It does, however, clearly say the previous arbitration agreement you were bound to (failed to opt out) remains in full affect.
> 
> 
> ...


Every blank contract they send you that requires free labor violates their tos because it's fraud it also violates article 23 of human rights & the 13th amendment of the Constitution

You can't coerce, trick, defraud, people into providing free labor it takes 3rd grade math to verify the receipts

Claiming their just a technology generating leads company not a cab company is a violation of their tos as their taking 50-90% of the fares, they shouldn't have anything to do with routes or fares if they're not a cab company they should just charge a connection finder's fee & that's that, they want to control everything about my "independent business" they state all they do is generate leads & have no liability that's not worth 50-90% of fares lol if so they need to pay my maintenance, fuel, SOC sec, workers comp, unemployment, etc etc etc

Claiming I'm an "independent business" owner yet I can't set my price or cancel unprofitable rides without punsihment is a violation of their own tos

People can lie but when a company does it, it's FRAUD.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Only works if you opted out on every single one.
> Miss one and it invalidates all of them...


Not true.

It states clearly, if you opted out within 30 days of singing up, you're opted out. If you didn't, you're not and cannot be opted out.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Not true.
> 
> It states clearly, if you opted out within 30 days of singing up, you're opted out. If you didn't, you're not and cannot be opted out.


Read subsection c) of 13.8 which clearly states if you were already under a binding arbitration clause (failed to opt out previously, ever) that clause remains in effect...


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Read subsection c) of 13.8 which clearly states if you were already under a binding arbitration clause (failed to opt out previously, ever) that clause remains in effect...


Isn't that what I said? 


Boca Ratman said:


> If you didn't, you're not and cannot be opted out.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Isn't that what I said?


No, you seem to think you can opt out of this agreement within 30 days no matter what.
But you can't. If you failed to opt out ever before for any previous agreement with Uber.

Hense why you said my statement is "Not True".



troothequalstroll said:


> Geez they coming every few months now just agree & opt out nothing they send is enforceable there's so many illegal terms in their agreements that they're all in breach & not binding in one sentence they say something & the very next it says the opposite lol
> 
> 
> Every blank contract they send you that requires free labor violates their tos because it's fraud it also violates article 23 of human rights & the 13th amendment of the Constitution
> ...


They never coerced you, tricked you or defrauded you.
Each of these has missing actions on their part.
Did they threaten you or "hold a gun to your head" have any blackmail or other method of "force"? No? Then there is no coercion. You entered into a binding contract (true, one that benefits them and not you) of your own free will. You chose, again, of your own free will to provide the service, under their binding contract in the method and within the terms they set out that you agreed to, without any effort of force on their part.

They didn't "trick" you about anything. Every change they have made to their payment system and how you will be paid has been clearly defined. You had every opportunity to read and, if deciding you didn't like their contract, opt to not participate. This is a system by which if you do not like their TOS you can simply walk away. No one, ever, forced you to remain a part of their contract. They are not, by the way, required to negotiate these terms with you. It is accept or walk away.

And, to defraud someone you have to have mislead that person in some way. Note, this is not You Didn't Understand. They told you, every time, how you would be paid (per mile per minute) and told you that you would receive none of the information you claim you are entitled to.
Point of fact, they specifically have stated repeatedly that you are not entitled to that information per their TOS that you agree to every single time you log on and go Online.

That you don't like it, that you think it is unfair, that you think they somehow have "enslaved" you while you maintain 100% the ability, and right, to simply Walk Away proves you either suffer a mental defect or don't understand basic English. You, most certainly, would never be able to graduate from Law School, though it would be suggested you take some time to study even the basic tenants of Freedom and how your ability to walk away from this shitty company at any moment eliminates 100% of your claims in your nonsensical rant.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> No, you seem to think you can opt out of this agreement within 30 days no matter what.
> But you can't. If you failed to opt out ever before for any previous agreement with Uber.
> 
> Hense why you said my statement is "Not True".


No, re read my post slowly. Especially tje first sentence 


Boca Ratman said:


> It states clearly, if you opted out within 30 days of singing up,


Let me know where you're confused, I gladly clear it up.

Also, it's not "hence why" it's just hence. 
Hence why is repetitive, redundant AND mean the same thing.

You said, it only works if you opted out on every single one. This is not true. You only have to opt out once AND it has to be within your first 30 days. Once you opt out, your opted out. No further opting out needed.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> No, re read my post slowly. Especially tje first sentence
> 
> Let me know where you're confused, I gladly clear it up.
> 
> ...


You really should try reading subsection c) as you are clearly wrong.

No matter how pedantic you feel you must be, hence why I will continue to use this technically correct statement (just as hence why not for negatives), no matter how much it might bother someone such as yourself.

For those too lazy (or just don't know how to find it) here is section 13.8 in its entirety.

13.8. Your Right To Opt Out Of This Arbitration Provision

(a) Agreeing to this Arbitration Provision is not a mandatory condition of your contractual relationship with us. If you do not want to be subject to this Arbitration Provision, you may opt out of this Arbitration Provision (subject to the pending litigation provision in Section 13.2, and the limitations set forth in this Section 13.8). To do so, within 30 days of the date that this Agreement is electronically accepted by you, you must send an electronic email from the email address associated with your driver account to [email protected], stating your intent to opt out of this Arbitration Provision, as well as your name, the phone number associated with your driver account, and the city in which you reside.

(b) An email sent by your agent or representative (including your counsel) shall not be effective. Your email may opt out yourself only, and any email that purports to opt out anyone other than yourself shall be void as to any others. Should you not opt out of this Arbitration Provision within the 30-day period, you and Uber shall be bound by the terms of this Arbitration Provision. You will not be subject to retaliation if you exercise your right to opt out of this Arbitration Provision.

*(c) If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect. *
*Emphasis added as well as bolding to draw attention to the pertinent clauses. If, you were bound by an existing Arbitration Agreement that existing agreement will remain in full force and effect. Meaning that, if you failed, even once, to opt out, your bound by That Agreement whether you like it or not.*

(d) Neither your acceptance of this Agreement nor your decision to opt out of this Arbitration Provision will affect any obligation you have to arbitrate disputes not specified in this Arbitration Provision pursuant to any other agreement you have with us or any of our subsidiaries or affiliate entities. Likewise, your acceptance of or decision to opt out of any other arbitration agreement you have with us or any of our subsidiaries or affiliate entities shall not affect any obligation you have to arbitrate claims pursuant to this Arbitration Provision.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> You really should try reading subsection c) as you are clearly wrong.
> 
> No matter how pedantic you feel you must be, hence why I will continue to use this technically correct statement (just as hence why not for negatives), no matter how much it might bother someone such as yourself.
> 
> ...


This says, if you were bound to arbitration, meaning if you failed to opt out originally, 
Opting out now will do no good, like the mafia, ince your in, you're in for life.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> This says, if you were bound to arbitration, meaning if you failed to opt out originally,
> Opting out now will do no good, like the mafia, ince your in, you're in for life.


This is exactly what I am trying to tell you but you flat out said what I posted was "Not True"
Oh, and not just previously failed.
If, at any point going forward, you fail to opt out it nullifies your ability to opt out again.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Additionally why wod your lawyer need a BCC when a visible CC would make so much more reasonable sense.


Maybe this has something to do with it?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


One might think that but hey, I'm a lead plaintiff in a class action law suit against them and haven't been deactivated in the 3 years since we filed. Was opted out for 2 years before that. So no, they will not deactivate you for opting out.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


I've always opted out since I started years ago and I'm not deactivated. I have no intention of filing frivolous lawsuits over trivial matters. I'm just not a fan of letting anyone dictate to me that we have to resolve all matters in clown court instead of real court.

I find it highly suspicious that I had my app on and off from home all day and as soon as I completed my FIRST ride of the day I got logged off and forced to agree to the terms to log back on again. I just drove for Lyft for the rest of the night and the next day read the 20 pages of terms in one agreement and several in the other, agreed to them, and opted out of arbitration again the next day.

It really seems like they were trying to make it so that drivers would agree to them without reading them. Also, we must agree with UNDERSTAND the terms? I don't understand the terms and they seem contradictory. I doubt anyone understands the terms without being a lawyer, who even then is likely to see contradictions and statements which probably do not make legal sense. But I guess such is life. We must agree to 20 pages of incomprehensible legalese and agree that we understand it, or we cannot use the apps.

The agreement basically amounts to: "To the greatest extent possible by law, Uber can do anything and you can't do anything about it, but if you do anything wrong such as but not limited to uttering any piece of information you got from Uber that wasn't published in an Uber ad, you are liable"


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> I've always opted out since I started years ago and I'm not deactivated. I have no intention of filing frivolous lawsuits over trivial matters. I'm just not a fan of letting anyone dictate to me that we have to resolve all matters in clown court instead of real court.
> 
> I find it highly suspicious that I had my app on and off from home all day and as soon as I completed my FIRST ride of the day I got logged off and forced to agree to the terms to log back on again. I just drove for Lyft for the rest of the night and the next day read the 20 pages of terms in one agreement and several in the other, agreed to them, and opted out of arbitration again the next day.
> 
> ...


You break it down well T.

What it really comes down to is opt out first, last, and always. Doesn't matter if you previously have or have never since it does no harm to opt out and may do a great deal of good.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> It doesn't say word one about "if you had a previous issue"
> It does, however, clearly say the previous arbitration agreement you were bound to (failed to opt out) remains in full affect.
> 
> 
> ...


He used both BCC and CC.

Lyft switches rides on you that you never accepted.

There's one.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> I've always opted out since I started years ago and I'm not deactivated. I have no intention of filing frivolous lawsuits over trivial matters. I'm just not a fan of letting anyone dictate to me that we have to resolve all matters in clown court instead of real court.
> 
> I find it highly suspicious that I had my app on and off from home all day and as soon as I completed my FIRST ride of the day I got logged off and forced to agree to the terms to log back on again. I just drove for Lyft for the rest of the night and the next day read the 20 pages of terms in one agreement and several in the other, agreed to them, and opted out of arbitration again the next day.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Tell me that contract is enforceable when they're holding your job and your income over your head. Threatening you with your sole source of income(FT drivers) if you don't sign it. It sounds like an unenforceable contract due to economic duress to me.


----------



## XLnoGas (Dec 20, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> Exactly. Tell me that contract is enforceable when they're holding your job and your income over your head. Threatening you with your sole source of income(FT drivers) if you don't sign it. It sounds like an unenforceable contract due to economic duress to me.


Agree. I don't think this is legal. Would be nice if we can get a lawyer in these forums to comment.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> No, you seem to think you can opt out of this agreement within 30 days no matter what.
> But you can't. If you failed to opt out ever before for any previous agreement with Uber.
> 
> Hense why you said my statement is "Not True".
> ...


Is that why they're being sued banned & regulated everywhere that matters lol

Is that why they've paid billions in fines, settlements, lobbying, donations, bribes haha

Is that why Travis k cashed out 100% as soon as he legally could lmao

3 BILLION dollars just this last month cashed out Uber pays $1 or LESS net on minimum fares that's 3+ billion rides a billion+ HOURS of labor for 1 "man" & you're trying to tell me that's not a crime against humanity lmao how many man hours did the pyramids take idk just asking

If he gave every driver who ever gave a ride $4-5 for ever ride they've ever given hed still have billions left from what he's stole from labor over the last decade & that's the least they owe

*Labor* *trafficking* is a form of modern-day slavery in which individuals perform *labor* or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion.

Coercion is threats, intimidation, threatening desperate, old, dumb to fire them or punishing them for cancelling a ride is DURESS for a desperate, old, or dumb person

They have rights

It's fraud to send me a contract that requires free labor duh it's non binding if I had the details I wouldn't of accepted it

Is that why eats & Cali drivers now get details of their contract lmao

Trooth not ranting

It's an organized crime racket that gets cash flow from human trafficking 2+ million trips per day out of 4+ million & skimming like an old Vegas casino laundering it thru real estate, stock Opti ns, & bribing every person & agency that matters to operate above the law

Instead of a gun they use an app to rob & steal $1-4 2+ million times per day nothing more nothing less there's no technology in coercing people to work for $3 an hour cuz it's better than zero

Is that why they were sued & lost multiple times for running false advertisements and we're forced to change them multiple time?

Madoff & Enron had a baby

Nothing they do is legal I can prove for 4+ years multiple times per day they attempt to human traffic me & if I had access to their servers could prove 20,000+ attempts I didn't get the destination details of, this isn't advanced calculus lol

Keep trying to convince me $4-4 isn't 0 lmao or $8-$4 isn't $4 & I don't work for 3 McChickens n hour I need least 10 & imma ignore that and go for 65 McChickens since the CEO says they only generate leads & I'm an "independent business OWNER" & I choose not to run my business at a loss

I Ain mad at Cha though merikkka ef yeah soon I'll have my details and won't have a reason to complain because I'm not being tricked all day into working for free so no need to cancel illegal non binding contracts

Woohoo


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


I opted out nearly 5 years ago. So far, i have never had a problem.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


doesn't happen - and can't happen: it's illegal.



Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Are you daft or illiterate.
> I literally posted sub section c) of 13.8 from the January 6th 2020 agreement.
> @@@@
> 
> ...


The problem that Uber would have trying to enforce that is that it is illegal, and unenforceable.
Each time Uber issues a new agreement requiring a driver to agree or not drive, the driver has the legal right to opt-out of the arbitration. The claim that you are bound by a prior arbitration agreement is made moot by the fact that the new agreement states, clearly, that it supersedes the prior agreement. Not even Clarence Thomas would find in favor of Uber if someone opt-ed out of this agreement but had not opted-out in prior ones. (just an opinion - but I'm on pretty solid ground here.)

And: @Asificarewhatyoudontthink, if you continue to address your fellow members here in the deragatory manner you did in your comment, you will be asked to leave the forum. We don't have to agree with everyone here - but we do have to show a modicum of respect. Follow the terms of use, please.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> doesn't happen - and can't happen: it's illegal.
> 
> 
> The problem that Uber would have trying to enforce that is that it is illegal, and unenforceable.
> Each time Uber issues a new agreement requiring a driver to agree or not drive, the driver has the legal right to opt-out of the arbitration. The claim that you are bound by a prior arbitration agreement is made moot by the fact that the new agreement states, clearly, that it supersedes the prior agreement. Not even Clarence Thomas would find in favor of Uber if someone opt-ed out of this agreement but had not opted-out in prior ones. (just an opinion - but I'm on pretty solid ground here.)


I frequently lack the words, and I think that's probably fairly common, but here I did and I regretted it, I regret it, but then people like you supply them and I think, I hope anyway, you know, that people get it.


----------



## June132017 (Jun 13, 2017)

I don't think Uber can negate access to the app if you don't want to agree. They might be in big trouble with this. One time I saw a show where they said something like a contract can't be all in favor of one side. I don't know if that law is still applicable, or what.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> doesn't happen - and can't happen: it's illegal.
> 
> 
> The problem that Uber would have trying to enforce that is that it is illegal, and unenforceable.
> ...


Except that the same "New Agreement" you are referring to is what specifically states that previously binding Arbitration Agreements supersede the opt out of this one. And, I am certain you would be proven incorrect in case law regarding contracts.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

June132017 said:


> I don't think Uber can negate access to the app if you don't want to agree. They might be in big trouble with this. One time I saw a show where they said something like a contract can't be all in favor of one side. I don't know if that law is still applicable, or what.


They can do whatever they want technically. However you are right a contract can't be one-sided and therefore can be ruled unenforceable. However it would take for you not agreeing, causing you to not be able to sign in, and for you filing a lawsuit for anything to come up this. Chances are if someone was to do this , they did not opt out of arbitration and therefore they're not able to sue


----------



## Sepelion (Oct 28, 2019)

I love how the general tone of Uber nowadays is shifting toward "we're an exploitative company about to get legally cornholed" defense mode.

Such a different atmosphere from years ago.

Some day they'll remake Django Unchained but Django will be an Uber driver and Dara will be Calvin Candie, the lawyer will be Stephen.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

How I wish we could opt out here in Canada


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> How I wish we could opt out here in Canada


What's the story there?


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Wonkytonk said:


> What's the story there?


We have a different government and legal system. U guys have it because the courts awarded it I believe. We have a case b4 our surprime Court but it seems the upper class doesn't give two shits about wages of the lower class. Its not an issue that affects them.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

RideshareDog said:


> We have a different government and legal system. U guys have it because the courts awarded it I believe. We have a case b4 our surprime Court but it seems the upper class doesn't give two shits about wages of the lower class. Its not an issue that affects them.


They are trying to outlaw it all together here when it comes to employment


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

The delivery app company Postmates is also dealing with an unexpected turn of events. In defending a claim of independent contractor misclassification brought by thousands of delivery drivers, Postmates prevailed in showing that the drivers were bound by arbitration agreements with class action waivers. If the drivers wanted to proceed, they would have to arbitrate their claims one-by-one, all 5,225 of them.

*Guess what happened next.

The plaintiffs' firm representing the drivers filed 5,225 individual arbitration claims with AAA.

Faced with having to pay $10 million in arbitration filing fees, Postmates has been trying to figure out how that would work. Can AAA even handle 5,225 simultaneous arbitrations? After Postmates missed an initial AAA payment deadline, the plaintiffs' firm filed a motion to hold Postmates in contempt for not paying the AAA fees.*

Postmates is now defending the contempt motion and trying to figure out, logistically, how to proceed.

Arbitration agreements can be helpful to businesses that have lots of independent contractors, mainly because the agreements can include class action waivers. But this dispute shows the potential downside of class action waivers. A sophisticated plaintiffs' class action firm can file thousands of simultaneous arbitration demands, flooding the system and leaving the company on the hook for millions of dollars in filing fees alone - before even getting to the merits or defense of a claim.

_and that was for only 5,000 independent contractors. how many independent contractors work for U/L? some lucky law firm is gonna strike it rich._


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

got a p said:


> The delivery app company Postmates is also dealing with an unexpected turn of events. In defending a claim of independent contractor misclassification brought by thousands of delivery drivers, Postmates prevailed in showing that the drivers were bound by arbitration agreements with class action waivers. If the drivers wanted to proceed, they would have to arbitrate their claims one-by-one, all 5,225 of them.
> 
> *Guess what happened next.
> 
> ...


This happened with Uber. Not to the tune of 5,000 though. if I remember correctly it was more like 700


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> This happened with Uber. Not to the tune of 5,000 though. if I remember correctly it was more like 700


12,501.



> Uber and Lyft Drivers Turn The Tables On Individual Arbitration
> 
> Last month brought news that some ride-hail drivers and their lawyers have adopted a new strategy for pursuing their misclassification-related claims against Uber and Lyft: filing for individual arbitrations in massive numbers. This came to light when attorneys for a group of Uber drivers filed a petition in federal district court in California, seeking an order compelling Uber to pay the initial filing fees of $1,500 per driver necessary to proceed with an astounding 12,501 individual arbitrations.


----------



## Crosbyandstarsky (Feb 4, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!
> 
> Here's the relevant section of the agreement:
> 
> ...


We work for uber.. I follow the rules they set for me. Why fight them? They give you a job, you do what they say. Maybe open your own business if you don't like their rules


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Wonkytonk said:


> Ok kids you know the routine by now. Updated Platform Access Agreement means once again opting out of arbitration so get hot!
> 
> Here's the relevant section of the agreement:
> 
> ...


You know what I say? Why bother? I opted out and was part of a class action, and you know what I got? I think 9 bucks, or some ridiculously small amount. I don't think you can win with Uber, no matter what you do.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

thing is after lawyers you get like enough for a coffee and donut, they all buy private jets.

edit - didn't even read oscars post first, lol. great minds think alike :woot: reminds me of the equifax thing that just happened. some lawyers told people they can get $250, now the news says they will get a pack of gum in the mail.



Crosbyandstarsky said:


> We work for uber.. I follow the rules they set for me. Why fight them? They give you a job, you do what they say. Maybe open your own business if you don't like their rules


i wouldn't hire someone at a certain wage then decrease their wage by 10% a year....


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Crosbyandstarsky said:


> We work for uber.. I follow the rules they set for me. Why fight them? They give you a job, you do what they say. Maybe open your own business if you don't like their rules


See that is where you're way wrong. We don't work for Uber. We are independent contractors. therefore we do have our own business. Who says because we are opting out of arbitration we are fighting them? we're protecting ourselves by not limiting our means of recourse.


Oscar Levant said:


> You know what I say? Why bother? I opted out and was part of a class action, and you know what I got? I think 9 bucks, or some ridiculously small amount. I don't think you can win with Uber, no matter what you do.


$9 is a pretty shitty payout. Most drivers I know got hundreds. Just because you opt out of arbitration doesn't mean you are going to sue them. All opting-out does is, it allows you to have multiple means of recourse. If you opt out of arbitration, you can still choose to arbitrate. The only difference is you would not be forced to and you would have other avenues to explore as well. Why would you limit your legal rights? Think about it this way, why would any company want you to?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Crosbyandstarsky said:


> We work for uber.. I follow the rules they set for me. Why fight them? They give you a job, you do what they say. Maybe open your own business if you don't like their rules


According to them you're an independent contractor, and by that alone they shouldn't be setting any rules at all for you. The fact that they do puts the lie to the independent contractor myth. Thanks for acknowledging that indirectly Crosbyandstarsky.


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

Sepelion said:


> Opt out and get flagged for deactivation


I am opting out all the time 4 and 1/2 years never have any problem.



Daisey77 said:


> See that is where you're way wrong. We don't work for Uber. We are independent contractors. therefore we do have our own business. Who says because we are opting out of arbitration we are fighting them? we're protecting ourselves by not limiting our means of recourse.
> 
> $9 is a pretty shitty payout. Most drivers I know got hundreds. Just because you opt out of arbitration doesn't mean you are going to sue them. All opting-out does is, it allows you to have multiple means of recourse. If you opt out of arbitration, you can still choose to arbitrate. The only difference is you would not be forced to and you would have other avenues to explore as well. Why would you limit your legal rights? Think about it this way, why would any company want you to?


I got $877 from Lyft one time $283 second time Uber paied me $288 bucks once and $380 second time I am expecting more from Uber this days. When I got I will post my pay check on this platform


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Except that the same "New Agreement" you are referring to is what specifically states that previously binding Arbitration Agreements supersede the opt out of this one.


Please show where in the new agreement it says that a clause in the old agreement supersedes the same clause in the new one 
AND show case law that suggests that a party to an agreement loses the right to avail themselves of an option in a new agreement because they didn't avail themselves of the option in a prior one.



Crosbyandstarsky said:


> We work for uber.. I follow the rules they set for me. Why fight them? They give you a job, you do what they say. Maybe open your own business if you don't like their rules


Wow - are you out of touch! Drivers do NOT work for Uber. Drivers ENGAGE UBER for the purpose of accessing their app in order to use the Uber platform. Drivers do not get paid by Uber... they get paid by the riders and then the drivers PAY Uber. READ YOUR AGREEMENT.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Please show where in the new agreement it says that a clause in the old agreement supersedes the same clause in the new one
> AND show case law that suggests that a party to an agreement loses the right to avail themselves of an option in a new agreement because they didn't avail themselves of the option in a prior one.


Again, read (if you can) section 13.8 and make sure to read subsection c).

Once you do you will realize how stupid that question sounds.

Every version of the agreement contains this exclusion. 
And the case law is every contract upheld regardless of how stupid any party accepting the terms was in not reading the contract.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Again, read (if you can) section 13.8 and make sure to read subsection c).
> 
> Once you do you will realize how stupid that question sounds.
> 
> ...


First, stop with the derogatory comments. Second, just because a large corporation like uber puts something in an agreement, does not make it a law, and does not make it enforceable.

Again, if you are so certain of something in law, please cite precedent. You might also find of Interest the federal judge in California's ruling that the Uber driver agreement was largely unenforceable because of the egregious terms which are in favor of the contract author, Uber.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Daisey77 said:


> See that is where you're way wrong. We don't work for Uber. We are independent contractors. therefore we do have our own business. Who says because we are opting out of arbitration we are fighting them? we're protecting ourselves by not limiting our means of recourse.
> 
> $9 is a pretty shitty payout. Most drivers I know got hundreds. Just because you opt out of arbitration doesn't mean you are going to sue them. All opting-out does is, it allows you to have multiple means of recourse. If you opt out of arbitration, you can still choose to arbitrate. The only difference is you would not be forced to and you would have other avenues to explore as well. Why would you limit your legal rights? Think about it this way, why would any company want you to?


I always wondered if Uber puts an asterisk on you, like if you mess up slightly, they can you, whereas if you didn't opt out, and you messed up somewhat, they might cut you some slack, I know they can't legally can you for opting out, but they can get creative in other ways for wanting to get rid of you, and if they want to get rid of you, that law won't help you one bit.

I just remembered, it was actually 89 bucks, still not enough to defray the accelerated depreciation that I experienced over the last 4 years before the pay out ( Im' in for 6 years now, trying to quit ) .



Daisey77 said:


> See that is where you're way wrong. We don't work for Uber. We are independent contractors. therefore we do have our own business. Who says because we are opting out of arbitration we are fighting them? we're protecting ourselves by not limiting our means of recourse.


"independent contractor" is another way of saying "all the burden of being in business for oneself but none of the benefits".

See, you have only one payor, Uber. True self employment you have much more than one client. True self employment is upward scalable, you can expand your business with no upward limit, only your mind limits you.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I always wondered if Uber puts an asterisk on you, like if you mess up slightly, they can you, whereas if you didn't opt out, and you messed up somewhat, they might cut you some slack, I know they can't legally can you for opting out, but they can get creative in other ways for wanting to get rid of you, and if they want to get rid of you, that law won't help you one bit.
> 
> I just remembered, it was actually 89 bucks, still not enough to defray the accelerated depreciation that I experienced over the last 4 years before the pay out ( Im' in for 6 years now, trying to quit ) .
> 
> ...


I have wondered the same thing. It does seem like I go through a lot of shit with them but talking with other drivers, a lot of them get deactivated for complete bullshit. There are also drivers who never seem to have an issue with them. So IDK. So although I go through my shit with them, it's not nearly as severe as stuff other drivers go through. I almost wonder if it's the opposite of what you think. That maybe they're more lenient or tolerant because we opted out. The arbitration thing is such a nightmare from what I hear. plus you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement keeping your lips sealed on anything these companies do. So perhaps opting out and them knowing you can sue and they can't shut you up quite as easily, is better? I don't know if we'll ever really know. All I know is I've been driving for 5 years and besides a Time violation, there's been no other disciplinary actions or suspensions on my account. No false allegations and no putting me on hold while they do a background. When I first opted out, that was back when there weren't really any issues with these companies. If there was, it in the public Spotlight yet. I simply opted out based on my lawyer's advice. Not just with Uber either, generally speaking any legal team will advise you it's always in your best interest to opt out


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> See, you have only one payor, Uber. True self employment you have much more than one client.


You need to read your driver agreements carefully. If you have only one client, that is by your choice, not by any restriction put on you by either Uber or Lyft. You are free to solicit clients and/or use other services in 'your business'.

Which brings us to the next point. Specifically, the Uber driver agreement says that the passenger is your direct customer and that you pay Uber to use their app for the purpose of connecting you with customers. In other words, because even though you receive funds from Uber, they are acting only as a third party payor, and you are engageing and paying them for their service - not the other way around.

They can't "can" you because you don't work for them. They can, at anytime they chose, decide not to sell you access to their app.

THAT is the reason for all of the misclassification lawsuits.



June132017 said:


> I don't think Uber can negate access to the app if you don't want to agree. They might be in big trouble with this. One time I saw a show where they said something like a contract can't be all in favor of one side. I don't know if that law is still applicable, or what.


What you are referring to is not exactly a law, it is about a couple of principles in law that say
1) a disagreement over an ambiguity in an agreement will be decided in favor of the party that did not author the agreement, and
2) a court may take into consideration a disparity of power between the parties when the stronger party authors an agreement.

That being said, two of the clauses in the driver agreements for both Uber and Lyft says that
1) either party may terminate the agreement and
2) that they (Uber/Lyft) in their sole discretion may determine the outcome of any disagreement between the parties.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That being said, two of the clauses in the driver agreements for both Uber and Lyft says that
> 1) either party may terminate the agreement and
> 2) that they (Uber/Lyft) in their sole discretion may determine the outcome of any disagreement between the parties.


1) makes them a Right To Work Company much like a corporate version of Right To Work States without any of the hassles of having to deal with 'employees'. I mean if they truly believe us to be independent contractors that's a non issue as there's nothing really binding driver to company except each individually accepted contract to complete a run, actually not even that right. A driver's transaction with the rideshare companies is complete but for the payment once we accept a ride request.

Including such statements is implicit acknowledgement of an employee employer relationship.

I think I'm going to start referring to them as Right To Work Companies.

The entire business setup of these rideshare companies is a scam on drivers their customers.

I mean if riders are our direct customers than anything that happens during that ride is a subject to be dealt with between the driver, and the rider his customer right?

So what business do these companies have in deactivating for say, a cancellation rate; because it affects their customers?

Well we're their customers since we're paying them right, and what business do they have extracting additional money from our customers the riders when we're already paying the rideshare companies for the connection? Seems like straight up fraud to me.

If anything we should be charging our customers the riders a service fee to cover our costs to the rideshare companies right?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I have an agreement with my cable company that says I can cancel our agreement at any time just as they can. That doesn't mean they are my employer or that I employ them. I'm afraid the whole basis of your statement is incorrect


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I have an agreement with my cable company that says I can cancel our agreement at any time just as they can. That doesn't mean they are my employer or that I employ them. I'm afraid the whole basis of your statement is incorrect


It was an off hand thought based on the fact in right to work states both the employee and employer can sever the relationship at any time without cause. The thought wasn't meant to be reciprocal, it would be ludicrous to suggest that drivers employ rideshare companies. Implicit in the thought is the forgone conclusion that drivers are in fact employees, and as such, as in right to work states, they can be terminated essentially at will for no cause, just as the employee driver can terminate the employment at any time. And as we know from numerous examples the companies do sever the employment with very little reason, or on at best spurious accusations with little to no evidence.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> It was an off hand thought... the companies do sever the employment with very little reason...


Once again, there is no employment agreement for drivers with the Rideshare companies. When Uber or Lyft sever an agreement, they are severing their agreement with you thar allow provides you, the driver, to license and use use their app for the purpose of soliciting and accepting ride requests. it's not just semantics. It is the definition of their legal relationship to you as a driver.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Once again, there is no employment agreement for drivers with the Rideshare companies. When Uber or Lyft sever an agreement, they are severing their agreement with you thar allow provides you, the driver, to license and use use their app for the purpose of soliciting and accepting ride requests. it's not just semantics. It is the definition of their legal relationship to you as a driver.


Well then Michael, once again, off hand thought. In right to work states each entity in the employment 'structure' is allowed to terminate the relationship without legal consequence, turns out there almost always is because businesses are full of shit in their firing practices, but in general none. Again, off hand thought. Not wedded to it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

It seems that in each of your posts you are referring to an *employment* agreement between Uber and its drivers, when no such thing exists. Without an employment arrangement, "right to work" has nothing to do with anything since it means only that neither a union nor an employer can require union membership as a requisite for employment. I have no idea why you keep bringing right to work up. "Right to work" has nothing to do with an independent contractor's relationship with a company.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It seems that in each of your posts you are referring to an *employment* agreement between Uber and its drivers, when no such thing exists. Without an employment arrangement, "right to work" has nothing to do with anything since it means only that neither a union nor an employer can require union membership as a requisite for employment. I have no idea why you keep bringing right to work up. "Right to work" has nothing to do with an independent contractor's relationship with a company.


Again off hand thought. One i'm not vested enough to go back and forth on. Take the win. Congrats.


----------

