Editing Uber EULA precludes jury trial (section)

== Trial-court proceedings ==

Uber moved to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration, arguing that the McGintys had agreed to Uber's terms of use, and that it contained a provision whereby the McGintys had agreed to arbitration in lieu of filing suit.<ref name="coa" /> Specifically, Uber alleged that the McGintys had confirmed their agreement to Uber's terms of service using the Uber Eats app on two occasions: (1) initially on April 1, 2021, and then (2) again on January 8, 2022, when those terms were revised. The McGintys responded by saying that they had no recollection of agreeing to Uber's new terms on January 8, 2022. Instead, they suggested that their daughter had used the app and may have agreed instead.

The trial court denied Uber's motion. It concluded that the wording of the arbitration agreement did not "clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum".<ref name="coa" />  Specifically, the court found that Uber's terms of service were not clear as to whether arbitration was "a substitute for the right to seek relief" through a lawsuit<ref name="coa" /> It noted, for example, that the earlier terms of service from 2021 specifically stated that, by agreeing to them, a customer waived their right to a jury trial. On the other hand, the revised terms in 2022 did contain this provision.