# Court says Uber can’t hold users to terms...



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Court says Uber can't hold users to terms they probably didn't read​[HEADING=2]Adding a link to a registration page isn't good enough, court says.[/HEADING]
by Timothy B. Lee - Jan 5, 2021 4:33pm CST









David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The highest state court in Massachusetts has rejected Uber's efforts to force a blind man's discrimination claims to be settled in arbitration. In the process, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court raised the bar for technology companies trying to impose one-sided terms of service on users without providing clear notice that they were doing so.

When Christopher Kauders signed up for an Uber account several years ago, he had to fill out three screens of information. The third screen was titled "link payment" and offered users various ways to pay for Uber rides. Below these options was a message that stated that "by creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy."

Users could click on a link to view these legal documents, but the app didn't require users to do so. At no point was Kauders required to click an "I agree" button.

Later, three Uber drivers refused Kauders service because he was accompanied by a guide dog. Kauders sued Uber for illegal discrimination. In an early 2018 ruling, a judge held that Uber's terms of service required that Kauders' case go to arbitration. The arbitrator then ruled against Kauders, finding that drivers are independent contractors and hence Uber isn't responsible for their actions.
[HEADING=2]"Did not constitute a contract"[/HEADING]
But on appeal, Kauders' lawyers argued that he had never agreed to arbitration in the first place. On Monday, the highest state court in Massachusetts accepted Kauders' argument, holding that merely mentioning terms and conditions on a registration page wasn't sufficient to create a binding contract between Kauders and Uber.

"Uber's terms and conditions did not constitute a contract with the plaintiffs," the high court wrote (another woman had also sued Uber). The case was sent back down to the lower court.
Advertisement

It's not clear if Kauders will prevail in the lawsuit. It's possible that the court will reach the same conclusion the arbitrator did. But the broader impact of the ruling is to put companies on notice that they can't bind users to restrictive terms merely by linking to those terms somewhere in a site or app's registration process. In order to create a legally binding contract, a tech company has actually put the terms in front of the user and get them to affirmatively agree to them.

The high court points out that when it's signing up new drivers, Uber takes a different approach. Before drivers can register, they are required to push a button marked "YES, I AGREE" not once but twice.

"The contrast between the notice provided to drivers and that provided to users is telling," the court writes. "As Uber is undoubtedly aware, most of those registering via mobile applications do not read the terms of use or terms of service included with the applications."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...hold-users-to-terms-they-probably-didnt-read/


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

MHR said:


> ​Court says Uber can't hold users to terms they probably didn't read​
> [HEADING=2]Adding a link to a registration page isn't good enough, court says.[/HEADING]
> by Timothy B. Lee - Jan 5, 2021 4:33pm CST
> 
> ...


I remember going to a huge waterfall on a glacier in Iceland. People were there on a rock-platform overlook to see it. They had their kids. There was a place that wasn't sealed off, but it had a cable that stopped anybody from going past a certain point. I said to myself, You know, in the States they'd have that hurricane-fenced off, because they're afraid somebody's gonna fall and some lawyer's going to appear. There, the mentality was like it was in America in the old days: If you fall, you're stupid.
Clint Eastwood


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Uber will just require all users to "read" and agree twice to their terms and conditions before they can use their service.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

If the court does agree with the arbitrator, the legislators or regulators will simply put regulations or laws into effect that hold the TNCs responsible for their drivers. This is what happened to the cab companies. While the TNCs largely have ducked having to follow the same regulations as the cab companies, this kind of discrimination makes it a _hoss uvva' diff'rint cullah_. The advocacy groups will make enough noise and a sympathetic government will listen and act.

This is how the District of Columbia decided to hold cab companies responsible for their drivers. The TNCs and their drivers think that this "independent contractor" model is something new. The cab companies have been doing it here for as long as anyone can remember. There were numerous complaints about discrimination by drivers over the years. When the City decided to go after the cab companies, the companies held up the contracts and shrugged their shoulders. "He does not work for us, he is an independent contractor. We can not do anything about it."

When the do-gooders tried lawsuits, the same thing happened. Of course, the driver had nothing. The do-gooders figured that the companies had something, so they pressured the politicians. As soon as it became the rule that the companies were responsible, the lawyers and adjudicators hit them from both sides. Unfortunately for the do-gooders, they quickly found out just how much money that the companies really had.

Given a choice between the balance sheet of a 1990s D.C. cab company and a 1930s Colorado short line, I would take the Colorado railroad every time. There were two exceptions to this. Of the two, one owed its principal financier to the fifth generation. The other one had money, but always settled quickly.


----------



## JaysUberman (Dec 19, 2017)

This will eventually be found I believe to be the case here in Canada as well. The concept of independent legal advice (ILA) is very important up here and the fact that Uber presents you with a new contract and says here agree to it or else you can't drive today will eventually found when tested in court to be illegal.

Funny thing is Uber could save themselves a whole lot of legal grief by presenting a new contract to the driver and saying you have x number of days to agree while the old contract is still in force but for reasons unknown won;'t do it. By giving a driver a certain number of days to agree to any new conditions (and to presumably obtain legal advice if desired) a lot of issues would be eliminated.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

I just thought of a high paying new job!! Gauge your eyes out and get a service dog. It can pay big!! I bet 1 out of 5 drivers rejects dogs because they don’t realize how serious the service dog issue is. This blind guy from the article will likely get 6 figures from this cancellation that was only a 10 minute inconvenience to get another driver. 

Uber should just offer a $2 bonus to take registered (with Uber)service dogs and let the driver know up front. It would cut these incidents down by at least 50%.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

MHR said:


> ​On Monday, the highest state court in Massachusetts accepted Kauders' argument, holding that merely mentioning terms and conditions on a registration page wasn't sufficient to create a binding contract between Kauders and Uber.​


So the blind man would have been able to read the terms if they had presented to him on his device. Oh well. I'm kinda surprised there is not already some case law regarding having the terms presented to you vs having to click a link to see the terms.

That distictinction may fly in the liberal state of Massachusetts. Here in the ultra liberal state of California the driver would have been deactivated in a matter of hours. Terms read or no terms read.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> I just thought of a high paying new job!! Gauge your eyes out and get a service dog. It can pay big!! I bet 1 out of 5 drivers rejects dogs because they don't realize how serious the service dog issue is. This blind guy from the article will likely get 6 figures from this cancellation that was only a 10 minute inconvenience to get another driver.
> 
> Uber should just offer a $2 bonus to take registered (with Uber)service dogs and let the driver know up front. It would cut these incidents down by at least 50%.


Where would that $2 come from?


----------



## teh744 (Apr 14, 2018)

Then what would happen if the dog left a lot of hair behind?? Enough to prevent you from taking another ride. That $2 may be covering that.


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> This blind guy from the article will likely get 6 figures from this cancellation that was only a 10 minute inconvenience to get another driver.


From who? Uber isn't a service provider and it's not an Uber car but mine. The only thing this guy can do is: terminate those drivers and that's it.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

MikhailCA said:


> From who? Uber isn't a service provider and it's not an Uber car but mine. The only thing this guy can do is: terminate those drivers and that's it.


Why are you asking from who? From Uber!!! Uber usually takes over half the fare. They can get 2 less dollars for special needs riders and still make a profit. 99% of the riders are not special needs , so what's the big deal? Pay the driver a couple of extra bucks for the headache .


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

...and here I **** in a court of law ignorance wasn't a defense. sheesh. Seems it is AOK now.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Why are you asking from who? From Uber!!! Uber usually takes over half the fare. They can get 2 less dollars for special needs riders and still make a profit. 99% of the riders are not special needs , so what's the big deal? Pay the driver a couple of extra bucks for the headache .


It would be illegal.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> It would be illegal.


Please show me where it's illegal for U/L to pay their driver an extra $2 to take a service dog or wheelchair . It's not discrimination. It's a bonus.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Please show me where it's illegal for U/L to pay their driver an extra $2 to take a service dog or wheelchair . It's not discrimination. It's a bonus.


It's illegal to make someone register a service animal or tell you up front they have a disability.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

MHR said:


> Court says Uber can't hold users to terms they probably didn't read​[HEADING=2]Adding a link to a registration page isn't good enough, court says.[/HEADING]
> by Timothy B. Lee - Jan 5, 2021 4:33pm CST
> 
> 
> ...


Biden says he will raise minimum wage to $15.00 an Hour !

Pay us ALL $15.00 AN HOUR UBER


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I suspect $15.00 an hour is going to get thrown out in the negotiation phase.

That will double the min wage in a few states, 21 states to be specific.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> It's illegal to make someone register a service animal or tell you up front they have a disability.


I guess you've never heard of a registered service animal . It's a thing.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> I guess you've never heard of a registered service animal . It's a thing.


No, it really isn't. 
Sure, some people may put a vest on their animal saying it's a registered service animal, or they may attach a "license" to the animal. Understand, it's in no way a requirement. Service animals do not have to be legally registered & no customer has to tell a business beforehand that they have a disability. U/L requiring customers to register a service animal would be illegal.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> No, it really isn't.
> Sure, some people may put a vest on their animal saying it's a registered service animal, or they may attach a "license" to the animal. Understand, it's in no way a requirement. Service animals do not have to be legally registered & no customer has to tell a business beforehand that they have a disability. U/L requiring customers to register a service animal would be illegal.


I was told there is a registry that service dogs can be documented. Is that not true?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> I was told there is a registry that service dogs can be documented. Is that not true?


It wouldn't matter if it was. No person would HAVE to register their service animal. So at best the registry would be incomplete and there would be no way to force someone to register.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> It wouldn't matter if it was. No person would HAVE to register their service animal. So at best the registry would be incomplete and there would be no way to force someone to register.


Can we vote to change that? I don't see the big deal with disabled people being registered . Mist are already registered to get state disability benefits .

How are people "legally blind"? That's a registered thing isn't it?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Can we vote to change that? I don't see the big deal with disabled people being registered . Mist are already registered to get state disability benefits .
> 
> How are people "legally blind"? That's a registered thing isn't it?


Sure, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. It would mean removing ADA at the federal level & then again at state level. It would also be a really bad idea. The system we have now works, there's no need to change it.

Is it? Even if it is, it wouldn't matter. They still wouldn't HAVE to register with a private company.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> Sure, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. It would mean removing ADA at the federal level & then again at state level. It would also be a really bad idea. The system we have now works, there's no need to change it.
> 
> Is it? Even if it is, it wouldn't matter. They still wouldn't HAVE to register with a private company.


Can't there be a national registry for disabled Americans that U/L can reference? I don't see the big deal. It would put an end to discrimination because the corporations would already know the person is disabled . They could then better accommodate the rider.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Can't there be a national registry for disabled Americans that U/L can reference? I don't see the big deal. It would put an end to discrimination because the corporations would already know the person is disabled . They could then better accommodate the rider.


Right now that would be illegal. The big deal is that it would lead to discrimination. People shouldn't have to announce to everyone that they have a disability or some kind of medical condition. How would U/L better accommodate the rider than the system we have now? They can't.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Can't there be a national registry for disabled Americans that U/L can reference? I don't see the big deal. It would put an end to discrimination because the corporations would already know the person is disabled . They could then better accommodate the rider.


Yea, and then corporations can check to see if a person is disabled and figure out a way to not accomodate them.

There's a reason there is no registry.

You can file this in the not going to happen category.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> There's a reason there is no registry.


gosh, maybe those who do have a disability or challenge might have something to say about being on a 'list' just to make a RS driver happy? Hmmmm. &#129300;


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

observer said:


> Yea, and then corporations can check to see if a person is disabled and figure out a way to not accomodate them.
> 
> There's a reason there is no registry.
> 
> You can file this in the not going to happen category.


I really don't think so. It's still illegal to not accommodate them. I'm trying to help everyone not discriminate. I'll take your service dog and clean up the hair if I can get an extra $2 for doing it. If it's a wheelchair, maybe I can get an extra $2 for having to get out and deal with the pissy chair.

Believe it or not , Americans actually sign up to work as nurses etc. I have no doubt most drivers would still take the call. Even more would if an extra $2 was involved.

I'm merely suggesting U/L kick us back $2 for the headache . Not a big deal. I accept that you don't agree with me. I'm not mad. I stopped driving so it's a non issue for me at this point .


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> I really don't think so. It's still illegal to not accommodate them. I'm trying to help everyone not discriminate. I'll take your service dog and clean up the hair if I can get an extra $2 for doing it. If it's a wheelchair, maybe I can get an extra $2 for having to get out and deal with the pissy chair.
> 
> Believe it or not , Americans actually sign up to work as nurses etc. I have no doubt most drivers would still take the call. Even more would if an extra $2 was involved.
> 
> I'm merely suggesting U/L kick us back $2 for the headache . Not a big deal. I accept that you don't agree with me. I'm not mad. I stopped driving so it's a non issue for me at this point .


Since when has Uber not done anything illegal.

Their whole business is built on breaking every law they can and then begging forgiveness.

Not mad either, it doesn't affect me at all.

Just pointing out that a legal registry will never happen.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

O-Side Uber said:


> I really don't think so. It's still illegal to not accommodate them. I'm trying to help everyone not discriminate. I'll take your service dog and clean up the hair if I can get an extra $2 for doing it. If it's a wheelchair, maybe I can get an extra $2 for having to get out and deal with the pissy chair.
> 
> Believe it or not , Americans actually sign up to work as nurses etc. I have no doubt most drivers would still take the call. Even more would if an extra $2 was involved.
> 
> I'm merely suggesting U/L kick us back $2 for the headache . Not a big deal. I accept that you don't agree with me. I'm not mad. I stopped driving so it's a non issue for me at this point .


I think you really don't understand the issues on so many levels.

Just to start off, a disabled patron has a right to the same service that a nondisabled person has, not to wait till someone will accommodate them. 
Having a registry? I have a right to my privacy and a right to not disclose my disability if I don't want to, nor to have to use an accommodation if I don't want to. These are medical records, they are private. 
I could go on but the one place I think there is dramatic room for improvement is penalties for anyone falsely claiming to have a service animal. They should go to jail.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

The airlines are the first industry who got permisson to re-write ADA rules to crack down on fakes (while protecting the real ones)

https://www.aa.com/content/images/t...vice-animal-health-behavior-training-form.pdf
Now you have to fill out a form. Also if the animal doesn't behave like a service animal the airline can now say "screw you" and demand you crate them and for your flight, whether or not it's a service animal.

People with service animals now have to fill out forms stating that the animal has been trained, who trained them and give contact info for the trainer, on top of that they now have to sign a form stating if there is an accident that they understand that they will get charged, and on top of that the airline reserves the right to say "i don't care if its a service animal it isn't behaving it's going into cargo STFU.

So that's one industry winning against fake service animals, however I don't view a similar victory for us. Best bet is to suck it up and take them anyway.

Frankly whenever i get an option to take a passenger with a pet i'll jump on the fare.

Put up with their pet and be a cool guy.. get a tip.

Car gets trashed and shit on, well it aint my car, get a GOOD tip and or extort them for a cleaning fee.

Don't see the downside.


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> Why are you asking from who? From Uber!!! Uber usually takes over half the fare. They can get 2 less dollars for special needs riders and still make a profit. 99% of the riders are not special needs , so what's the big deal? Pay the driver a couple of extra bucks for the headache .


GUber and Gryft take about 31% of my fares annually.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Amos69 said:


> GUber and Gryft take about 31% of my fares annually.


The cab company is getting less than 50% and it's their car.

Friday they got $120 out of 290 in gross revenue. 41% and that was a _bad day,_ usually it's $120/350 which is 34%.

And they paid for the tow back to the shop.


----------

