An Uber driver ran a red light and crashed. A New Jersey couple can't sue thanks to Uber Eats' terms and conditions

A New Jersey couple seriously injured in an Uber accident can't sue the app company because they relied on a forced arbitration “I agree” clause, a court has ruled.

According to court documents, Georgia and John McGinty were in the back seat of an Uber taxi in March 2022 when their driver ran a red light and crashed into the side of another vehicle.

Georgia McGinty, a matrimonial lawyer, suffered multiple broken bones and was unable to work for more than a year, while John McGinty required surgery and a bone graft to repair his fractures.

But on September 20, a trio of Garden State appellate judges upheld Uber's argument that the McGintys had waived the right to trial when Georgia or her under-18 daughter appeared in a full-screen pop-up in the presentation of Uber's sister app Uber Eats Yes told them updated terms and conditions while they tried to order food.

“You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising in any way from or relating to your access to or use of the Services shall be resolved by binding individual arbitration between you and Uber, rather than by binding arbitration “individual arbitration shall be resolved in a court,” the agreement states.

The McGintys said in a statement Law and crime that they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the decision.

“We are horrified by what the court's decision suggests: a large company like Uber can avoid being taken to court by injured consumers because contractual language is hidden in a dozen-page-long service user agreement that has nothing to do with the cause “the injuries to consumers,” the McGintys said.

“The content, format and presentation – dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery – make it impossible for anyone to understand what rights they may have waived or how drastic the consequences might be.”

It is the latest legal case to draw attention to the use of binding arbitration agreements by large companies, which the vast majority of consumers are reportedly unaware of having signed.

In August, there was a public outcry over Disney's attempt to dismiss a wrongful lawsuit filed by the husband of a woman who died of an extreme allergic reaction to food that company restaurant workers had assured her was allergen-free.

Disney's lawyers had originally argued that the husband couldn't sue because of an arbitration clause in the terms of service for a free trial of Disney+ that he signed up for in 2019.

In the Uber case, the McGintys told the court they had no memory of seeing the last pop-up and believed their daughter actually agreed to it when she ordered takeout while the family was busy packing for a ski trip.

A lower court found that Uber's arbitration claim was unenforceable because it “failed.”[ed] to inform the plaintiff clearly and unequivocally that she waives the right to assert her claims before a court.”

However, the appeal judges agreed with Uber's contention that Georgia McGinty delegated authority to her daughter by giving her the phone and allowing her to place an order, and that her age was irrelevant because she had checked a box that said that she is at least 18 years old.