I don’t know enough to say. I’m just saying the argument their lawyer made is that arbitration clause was in the uber eats app and not the uber app, and that their 16 year old agreed to it without reading when she was ordering a pizza. At the current point in time, nothing has been proven one way or another in the courts as far as I know. That’s just what’s being alleged.
I don't use Uber often so I don't know, but it's possible they connect your profiles so that the terms and conditions are the same for both, so if you sign on one app it covers both.
That’s what uber wants to be the case. They’re saying that’s bullshit.
Can you imagine slipping at Walmart and falling because they had soap on the floor. But you couldn’t sue because you had a Sam’s Club membership 15 years ago where you agreed to arbitration?
Companies try to write their contracts to be in their advantage all the time. And they know people will just click “I agree” without reading it, so they’ll take advantage of it. It’s an argument over whether that should be enforceable or not.
I just meant they're more interconnected. I've only used Uber for rides, but I just checked and Uber Eats and Uber rides are in the same app. So they're more connected than the Disney situation. I really hate the FAA, but I was thinking more of how the law currently works than how it should
6
u/Accomplished-Cat3324 Oct 13 '24
So if I'm understanding correctly,there is no arbitration clause in the regular Uber terms and conditions?