Uber Crash Victims’ Legal Battle Blocked by Arbitration Clause Accepted via Uber Eats Order

New York — A New Jersey couple who suffered devastating injuries in an Uber crash has been prevented from taking the ride-hailing giant to court due to an arbitration agreement linked to an Uber Eats transaction. John and Georgia McGinty, whose lives were upended by a March 2022 accident, recently learned that they are barred from pursuing a lawsuit against Uber after a court ruled that the arbitration clause in Uber’s terms of service applies to their case. The clause was accepted when the couple, or more specifically their daughter, placed a food order using the Uber Eats app.

The accident occurred when the McGintys’ Uber driver ran a red light and was struck by another vehicle. The force of the collision left Georgia with multiple fractures throughout her body, including her spine, ribs, and other areas, necessitating several surgeries and long-term physical therapy. John sustained a fractured sternum and permanent impairment in his left wrist, which continues to affect his daily life. The couple described the aftermath of the crash as deeply traumatic, both physically and emotionally.

Hoping to hold Uber accountable, the McGintys filed a lawsuit, seeking a jury trial to address their claims. However, their legal efforts were halted when an appellate court ruled that they had agreed to Uber’s terms of service, including a binding arbitration clause that applies to both Uber Eats and Uber rides. The couple maintains that their daughter, who was using Georgia’s phone to place an Uber Eats order, clicked “accept” on the terms without fully understanding the consequences. Nevertheless, the court determined that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, blocking their path to a trial.

Uber, in response, argued that Georgia had agreed to the terms of service multiple times, including in early 2021, and that the couple continued to use the Uber app after accepting those terms. The company pointed out that the arbitration clause explicitly covers disputes related to auto accidents and personal injuries, requiring them to be resolved outside of court.

The appellate court’s decision overturned a previous ruling by a lower court, which had found that the arbitration clause was not clearly communicated to users. The lower court had sided with the McGintys, arguing that Uber failed to provide adequate notice that users were waiving their right to sue. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that the terms were sufficiently clear and that the couple had agreed to them.

The McGintys, in a statement to the press, said they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling, which they believe shields Uber from accountability. “We feel like we’ve been cheated out of our day in court,” they said. “It’s frightening to think that a few lines of fine print can strip away your rights, especially after something as life-changing as this accident.”

The Broader Issue of Arbitration in Consumer Contracts

The McGinty case has reignited the ongoing debate over arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, particularly in the tech industry. Critics argue that these clauses unfairly limit consumers’ access to the courts, forcing them into private arbitration, a process that often lacks transparency and can be skewed in favor of corporations.

In recent years, arbitration clauses have come under scrutiny in several high-profile cases. For instance, Disney faced widespread criticism after attempting to enforce an arbitration clause in a wrongful death lawsuit. The entertainment giant eventually relented, allowing the lawsuit to move forward in court, but the case raised awareness about the increasing use of arbitration agreements in everyday transactions. Consumer advocates have called for reform, urging lawmakers to introduce regulations that would make arbitration agreements more transparent and give consumers the ability to opt out. For the McGintys, however, the legal battle may be far from over as they explore options to challenge the court’s decision.

Continue Reading