The Cost In Using Uber: Losing Your Right to Sue

---

When you fire up the Uber app for a ride, it may seem like you’re just agreeing to pay for a lift. However, as per a recent ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, you’re actually doing more – potentially giving up your ability to sue the company, even in cases of serious harm.

In a decision with five judges in favor and one against, the court upheld Uber’s terms of service, which include an arbitration clause. The dissenting judge raised concerns about the far-reaching consequences of this ruling. In his words:

“By ticking off a box to keep using the Uber app and get a ride, passengers are essentially giving up all their rights against Uber without realizing it.”

This harsh reality was spotlighted in the story of William Good, a man from Massachusetts whose life took a dramatic turn due to an Uber trip.

The Life-Altering Incident

On April 30, 2021, William Good, a chef at a restaurant in Boston, utilized the Uber app to summon a ride from his workplace to his residence in Somerville.

It was a journey that took a tragic turn when the Uber driver’s car crashed into another vehicle. During the impact, Good was thrown forward, hitting his head on the passenger seat headrest and fracturing his neck. The outcome was devastating: Good became paralyzed instantly, losing function in all four limbs and becoming a quadriplegic.

In an attempt to seek justice and compensation for his life-altering injuries, Good decided to take legal action against Uber and the driver. However, he encountered an unexpected obstacle – the terms of service he had apparently agreed to while using the Uber app.

The Fine Print: What Users Accept When Using Uber’s App

On April 25, 2021 – just five days prior to his accident – when Good accessed the Uber app, he was shown a pop-up screen notifying him of updated terms. Similar to many users, Good probably clicked through without reading all the details. Unbeknownst to him, this action meant agreeing to several significant provisions:

1. Arbitration Clause: Any disagreements with Uber must be settled through arbitration rather than in a court.
2. Waiver of Right to Sue: Users relinquish their right to take legal action against Uber in a courtroom setting.
3. Uber’s Liability Limitations: Terms aim to protect the company from being held responsible for injuries during rides.
4. Driver Status: According to Uber, their drivers are contractors, not employees or representatives of the company.

A dissenting opinion highlights that users might naturally assume that Uber should take responsibility for both the services provided and the drivers offering them, which contrasts with the stated terms.

The Court’s Decision

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a decision affirming the enforceability of Uber’s terms of service, including the arbitration clause. The majority believed that the terms were adequately communicated through a pop-up screen and that by clicking “Confirm,” users entered into a valid agreement.

Justice Wendlandt, speaking for the majority, emphasized that Uber’s contract formation process through a ‘clickwrap’ method gave users sufficient notice of their terms, including agreeing to arbitrate disputes such as injury cases like this one.

The Dissenting Opinion

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kafker disagreed with this perspective. He argued that, considering the transaction’s nature and the non-intuitive terms involved, the notice provided was far from reasonable.

According to him, a regular Uber user would probably think:

“‘I am paying a large technology company money for a ride that it has set up to take me from one place to another and I would expect them to have some responsibility for the safety of that ride, right?”

Apparently, the other Justice did not see it that way.

Key Points from the Dissenting Opinion

Justice Kafker’s dissent shed light on several issues with Uber’s terms and the court’s ruling:

1. Lack of Clarity: The pop-up message didn’t explicitly mention “contract” or “agreement,” nor did it emphasize the legal rights involved.
2. Deceptive Language: The terms were framed as an “update,” minimizing their significance and discouraging users from reviewing them.
3. Time Constraints: Users encountered these terms when they were likely in a rush to book a ride, not when they had time to carefully read through a legal document.
4. Counterintuitive Terms: The agreement creates a relationship where users only contract with Uber, yet Uber’s drivers are solely responsible under the terms of service.

Justice Kafker’s final thoughts suggest that the notification about updated terms, with a link to those terms, may not be enough to meet the standard of reasonable notice as per the court’s ruling.

The Impact on Uber Users

The Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for Uber users in Massachusetts. By using the app, an Uber customer is:

• Waiving their right to take legal action against Uber in court, even for serious injuries
• Agreeing to settle all disputes through arbitration
• Acknowledging that Uber is not liable for its drivers’ actions
• Restricting their ability to seek full compensation for injuries or damages

As demonstrated by Mr. Good’s case, these seemingly complex legal concepts can have profound real-world effects. A routine trip home from work led to life-changing injuries, and now, due to terms he probably never read or comprehended fully, his pursuit of justice has become more challenging.

In Summary

The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Good v. Uber Technologies, Inc. serves as a stark reminder of how digital agreements hold power and how we might unknowingly relinquish our rights with a simple click.

The contrast becomes evident when comparing what consumers expect with the legal constraints of widely-used technology platforms. Furthermore, it prompts concerns regarding safeguarding consumer rights in the digital era and whether existing regulations effectively protect users amidst lengthy, frequently overlooked, and sometimes incomprehensible terms of service contracts.