> U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Friday that Uber’s online user agreement didn’t provide Spencer Meyer with sufficient notice of its arbitration policy for it to be binding.
Assumed this meant that if they'd told him a bit further in advance (e.g. 30 days, etc), it'd be fine, but no. Further down the page:
> Rakoff ruled the registration process didn’t provide sufficient notice to Meyer that he was waiving his right to have his claim heard by a jury in court.
Which seems a lot more interesting.
See for example:
And just to follow up, "protesting" isn't really the right word. A lot of times district court judges will write opinions supporting minority positions in the law in an attempt to influence higher judges and to provide a "template" legal reasoning for higher judges should they want to overturn precedent.
I think we're starting to see it via cases like this. A convoluted, lengthy, requires-a-law-degree contract like Uber's may start to carry a risk (via judges treating it as malicious and unenforceable) versus a simpler, more fair and balanced one.
Not really. This is just one case where you happen to agree with a judge's decision, it hardly means that software companies are going to start including one-page EULA's into their software. For decades these huge EULAs have worked quite well for most companies and this case won't change that.
It seems like it would be a lot better than what we currently have, though. At least there would be a market for companies that aren't shitty about it.
I'd definitely be in favour of standardising some basic assumptions that all suppliers and all customers of some common types of product or service could rely on unless they explicitly and prominently agreed otherwise, though. It doesn't take a 10 page legalese monster to buy a loaf of bread from my local store, but there are still rules to protect both the store and me in that transaction.
Can we just go ahead and start restricting the use of these clauses? They have a place in a reasonable contract between businesses, but using them to prevent customers suing or participating in class actions is completely ridiculous and should be illegal.
Chiefly, that the arbitrator is almost universally chosen by the company or for the benefit of the company and the customer (I object, strenuously, to being called a "consumer") almost never wins.
A good approach would be the random selection of a few members of the general populace, or the use of a third party skilled in legal matters with payment guaranteed no matter what the verdict.
It's like we've seen this problem before
This only holds if the people at that company are morally-perfect robots who never make choices subtly biased in their own favor.
Of course there are valid reasons for surge pricing, one of which is to keep supply with demand and ensure that the driver feels justly compensated for going somewhere they might not want to, but to say people aren't justified in their being upset at it because "it's 2016" is disrespecting the reality of the arguments against it.