The couple learned their minor daughter clicked to agree to Uber Eats’ terms of service, which contained arbitration wording|Stock Catalog|CC BY 2.0
A New Jersey couple trying to sue Uber for a car crash that left them severely injured cannot file a case against the company because of the arbitration clause they agreed to when their 12-year-old daughter placed a pizza order for Uber Eats through her parent’s phone.
An appeals court said an arbitration clause in the terms of service for using Uber Eats bars the couple from taking the company to court.
John and Georgia McGinty’s Uber driver ran a red light in 2022, causing their ride to collide with another car. The couple suffered significant physical and financial harm. Georgia had several fractures requiring surgery, and John has long-term injuries to his wrist and sternum.
They sued Uber for damages, only to learn from an appellate court recently that they had agreed to the ride-hailing app’s terms of service, which included mandatory arbitration, meaning disputes must be handled outside of court.
The court ruled that Uber’s arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, reversing a previous decision that would have allowed the case to go to trial. The McGintys plan to appeal.
The couple and their lawyer argue that most people don’t thoroughly read or understand these agreements, especially when using quick services like Uber Eats.
The case illuminates how big companies use arbitration clauses in their terms of service to avoid being sued or facing a public trial that could affect their brand.
A similar legal tussle involving Disney surfaced this year. The entertainment giant defended its Disney+ arbitration clause in a wrongful-death lawsuit involving a Disney World restaurant. After facing public backlash, it eventually allowed the lawsuit to go to court.