Editing Uber EULA precludes jury trial (section)

===The daughter's acceptance===

Uber argued that the plaintiffs' daughter had been given actual and apparent authority to agree to the terms of service on plaintiffs' behalf.<ref group="footnotes">Actual authority is present, as the appellate court explains, when an individual (in this case the plaintiffs' daughter) "reasonably believes" that another person wishes her to act on their behalf. Apparent authority, meanwhile, is present (again as explained by the appellate court) when a third party reasonably believes, based on someone's actions, that he or she has provided authority to another.</ref>

Here, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' daughter knowingly acted on their behalf.  It noted that Mrs. McGinty had agreed that her daughter was "capable," and that she would frequently order food on the family's behalf.  She also acknowledged that, at the time the revised terms were agreed to in January 2022, she and her husband had been busy packing, which further suggested to the court that the plaintiffs' daughter had acted on plaintiffs' behalf and with their permission.