“We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable,” wrote the three-judge panel. “We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order denying arbitration of the claims against Uber.”
A New Jersey appeals court has found that the terms of an Uber Eats subscription prohibit a married couple from suing Uber over a life-altering rideshare accident.
According to National Public Radio, plaintiffs John and Georgia McGinty filed their complaint against Uber in February of 2023. Their lawsuit was served a year after they both suffered “serious physical, psychological, and financial damages” after their driver crashed in another car.
“There are physical scars, mental scars, and I don’t think that they will ever really be able to go back to their full capacity that they were at before,” said their attorney, Mike Shapiro.
However, Uber responded to the couple’s initial complaint by asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration. In its petition, Uber attorneys argued that Georgia McGinty had waived her rights to litigation when she agreed to the terms and conditions regulating the Uber Rides and Uber Eats platforms.
The McGinty family tried to fight back, with Georgia saying that her minor daughter had agreed to Uber’s updated terms and conditions while ordering food on the couple’s behalf. A lower court initially sided with John and Georgia, denying Uber’s request for compelled arbitration.
But Uber appealed its decision—and, at the end of September, managed to secure a favorable decision from the appeals court.
“We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable,” wrote the three-judge panel. “We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order denying arbitration of the claims against Uber.”
In its order, the appeals court found that—even if the McGinty’s minor daughter had accepted Uber’s terms—Georgia’s consent to previous renditions of the same agreement was still binding.
“Georgia certified that her daughter was ‘capable,’ and would frequently order food, and she and John were preoccupied with packing, which supports the inference that the daughter acted knowingly on Georgia’s behalf,” the court wrote. “In summary, the Arbitration Agreement is valid and delegates the threshold question of the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator. Therefore, Georgia’s reliance on her daughter’s minority to raise an infancy defense shall be determined by the arbitrator.”
The McGintys’ attorney, Mike Shapiro, said that the family is considering their next move—and may, if necessary and at all possible, try escalating the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
“Uber has been extremely underhanded in their willingness to open the same cabinets that they’re forcing the McGintys to open up and have to peek around in,” Shapiro told N.P.R. “It’s unfortunate that that’s the way that they’re carrying on their business, because this is truly something that subjects millions and millions of Americans and people all over the world to a waiver of their hard-fought rights.”
Sources
A court blocks a couple from suing Uber over a crash, citing terms and conditions
New Jersey couple blocked from suing Uber after serious car accident
Join the conversation!