New Jersey appeals court sides with ride-hailing company, saying arbitration provision in terms was ‘valid’

The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”

After several days and countless news stories surrounding Disney’s bid to use Disney+ terms to shield itself from a lawsuit tied to Disney World, the Hollywood giant later backtracked and dropped the legal claim, allowing the matter to proceed in court instead of through arbitration.

  • pelespiritOPMEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    This does not seem like it could or should be legal.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      It really shouldn’t be. I was hoping Disney wan’t going to back down so it could be dealt with in court (and ideally struck down). As it stands, it’s still untested, legally, since Disney agreed to drop their fight. I’m almost positive that’s why Disney backed down so that they could keep that umbrella binding arbitration clause and still hopefully use it later.

      Hopefully the couple here is able to get legal help in suing and the umbrella binding arbitration clause they signed in an unrelated ToS can be struck down. That would very likely nullify Disney’s as well.

      • pelespiritOPMEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        Last month, a New Jersey court of appeals sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement requiring the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims, rather than litigating them in court.

        If it was a different SCOTUS, I’d say take it all the way. It’s a crap shoot right now though.