US couple barred from suing Uber after accident, say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms | New Jersey

A New Jersey couple who were seriously injured when their Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car have lost a bid to take legal action against the company in court.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty argue that Uber is enforcing an arbitration agreement after their daughter clicked “Agree” when ordering food through her mother's Uber Eats account when presented with updated terms and conditions.

Uber says Georgia McGinty's account displayed a “full-screen pop-up” on its app several times, prompting the user to accept the updated terms of service before they could access the service.

This comes amid heightened scrutiny of the terms and conditions of leading technology platforms. This summer, Disney faced backlash after its lawyers initially argued that the terms and conditions agreed to by a widower on the Disney+ streaming service protected the company from a wrongful death lawsuit he filed over the death of his wife after eating in at a restaurant in Disney World.

Last month, a New Jersey appeals court sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the couple to settle their personal injury claims rather than litigate them in court.

The court's Sept. 20 opinion said the arbitration clause contained in Uber's terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable,” even though the couple had claimed it was their daughter who had agreed to “Accept the Updated Agreement” months before her accident “Terms of Use”. Uber says Georgia McGinty also previously agreed to the terms.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were seriously injured in March 2022, suffering fractures and other physical injuries, as well as psychological and financial harm, according to court documents. About a year later, the couple filed a lawsuit against Uber.

In a statement to the Guardian, the McGintys said they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the Court of Appeal's decision, which they said had “exacerbated the pain and suffering they had experienced since the collision”.

The couple added that they were “appalled” that a large company like Uber “could escape being taken to court by aggrieved consumers because of contractual language hidden in a dozen-page-long service user agreement that had nothing to do with the cause.” had to do with the injuries to consumers.”

They said: “Dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery order make it impossible for anyone to understand what rights they might be giving up or how drastic the consequences might be.”

Uber responded to the couple's complaint by attempting to force arbitration and dismiss the case, citing Georgia McGinty's agreement to Uber's terms and conditions several months before the accident, which included an arbitration clause.

The court ruling, issued last week, states that Uber updated its terms of service in December 2021 and that Georgia McGinty – who has used Uber for both Uber rides and Uber Eats since 2015 – was presented with a “click-wrap” agreement over her Uber- App in January 2022, with the updated terms to which it must agree, including the arbitration clause.

Uber's records show that someone using Georgia McGinty's account that day checked boxes — indicating she had read and agreed to the updated terms, was at least 18 years old — and clicked “confirm.” .

However, lawyers representing the McGintys claim the couple cannot remember seeing the “click box” on the date in question, January 8 – and suspect their then-minor daughter must have clicked on it while they were a grocery delivery monitored by Uber Eats that evening as the parents were packing for a ski trip.

The McGintys recall that their daughter asked them if they could order food and that their daughter did so, either with or without Georgia McGinty's help. She then monitored the progress of the delivery on her mother's phone when Uber indicated that consent had been given to the checkbox.

While Uber's request to compel arbitration was initially rejected by a lower court in New Jersey last year, Uber appealed that ruling, arguing both that Georgia McGinty could not escape the agreement by claiming it was actually her daughter who agreed to the updated terms, and that Georgia McGinty Account had previously agreed to terms that also included an arbitration clause.

The McGintys' lawyers said in court documents that they were not given an opportunity to respond to the latter allegation.

After many months of litigation, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court decided to reverse the lower court's decision. The ruling said the agreement that “Georgia or her minor daughter agreed to when using her cell phone” was “valid and enforceable.”

The court added that there was “no ambiguity” regarding the arbitration process when Georgia McGinty agreed to Uber’s terms. “The arbitration agreement is valid and delegates the threshold issue of the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator,” the order said.

Asked for comment, an Uber spokesperson referred the Guardian to the ruling itself, saying the court had concluded that “on several occasions, the plaintiff herself – not her teenage daughter – was in breach of Uber's terms of service, including the Arbitration agreement, has agreed”.

“On more than one occasion, the user was informed by a full-screen pop-up message of updates to the Terms of Use and that these updated terms required the user to agree before continuing to use the app,” the spokesperson added.

Lawyers representing the McGintys said this was “another arbitration clause that appears to have infinite reach” – and an example of “the erosion of consumer protections and rights.”

They are reviewing the decision and planning their next steps and will likely file a petition with the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The McGintys' dispute with Uber is the latest case to shed light on the terms of use of prominent technology platforms.

After several days and countless messages surrounding Disney's attempt to use the Disney+ terms to protect itself from a Disney World-related lawsuit, the Hollywood giant later backed down and dropped the legal claim, leaving the matter in court could be negotiated instead of through arbitration.

Online products like Uber on mobile phones and apps allow companies to “pack a 50-page document of terms and conditions into a little box,” said Richard Staggard, a personal injury attorney. Many people click “Accept” without reading the terms and don't know what they're agreeing to, he noted, and most people don't have time to read long documents, especially if they're using the product as quickly as possible want.

David Horton, a law professor at the University of California School of Law who specializes in arbitration, said this case “shows how difficult it is for ordinary people not to waive their right to file lawsuits in court.”

Studies show such fine-print arbitration clauses are common, and Horton said more companies are using broad arbitration clauses in their user agreements.

He has called these types of agreements “infinite arbitration clauses.”