Uber EULA precludes jury trial - Revision history

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T07:58:42Z

Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:58, 23 February 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	==Background==		==Background==

	On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241009012906/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-date=9 Oct 2024\|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>		On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion). ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251016144210/https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf Archived])</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241009012906/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-date=9 Oct 2024\|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

	===Uber's terms of service===		===Uber's terms of service===

Bananabot: Re-archived 1 citation(s) from archive.today to web.archive.org using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-22T23:15:55Z

Re-archived 1 citation(s) from archive.today to web.archive.org using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:15, 22 February 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	==Background==		==Background==

	On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-url=https://~~archive~~.ph/~~ENSHQ~~ \|archive-date=~~28 Sep~~ 2024 \|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>		On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241009012906/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-date=9 Oct 2024\|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

	===Uber's terms of service===		===Uber's terms of service===

Bythmusters: Added cargo template

2026-01-14T00:48:42Z

Added cargo template

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A New Jersey couple who was injured while taking a ride they arranged through [[Uber]] was found to be legally precluded from litigation because of a clause in Uber's [[terms of service]] that requires waiver of any right to a jury trial. Instead, they were required to submit to [[Forced arbitration|binding arbitration]].
+{{IncidentCargo
 ==Background==
@@ Line 11: / Line 22: @@
 <blockquote>
 You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to… (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, [or] (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services… will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law.</blockquote>
 ==Trial-court proceedings==

Trinity: Added archived reference link

2026-01-11T19:31:33Z

Added archived reference link

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 11 January 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Background==		==Background==

	On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>		On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|archive-url=https://archive.ph/ENSHQ \|archive-date=28 Sep 2024 \|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

	===Uber's terms of service===		===Uber's terms of service===

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: Editing this ancient page, I found a ref from the BBC which is a reliable source.

2025-10-18T05:55:21Z

Editing this ancient page, I found a ref from the BBC which is a reliable source.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 18 October 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Background==		==Background==

	On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>		On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /><ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash \|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo \|website=BBC}}</ref> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

	===Uber's terms of service===		===Uber's terms of service===
Line 13:		Line 13:


	== Trial-court proceedings ==		==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.		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.

Kostas: add category

2025-01-28T17:24:56Z

add category

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 28 January 2025
Line 51:		Line 51:
	[[Category:Incidents]]		[[Category:Incidents]]
	[[Category:Lawsuits]]		[[Category:Lawsuits]]
			[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

Kostas at 16:36, 27 January 2025

2025-01-27T16:36:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 27 January 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:
	==References==		==References==
	<references />		<references />

			[[Category:Incidents]]
			[[Category:Lawsuits]]

Mingyee: Mingyee moved page Uber EULA Precludes Jury Trial to Uber EULA precludes jury trial

2025-01-23T13:40:36Z

Mingyee moved page Uber EULA Precludes Jury Trial to Uber EULA precludes jury trial

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 23 January 2025
(No difference)

Mingyee: Copy editing

2025-01-23T13:40:10Z

Copy editing

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 23 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A New Jersey couple who was injured while taking a ride they arranged ~~via~~ Uber was found to be legally precluded from ~~suing due to~~ a clause in Uber's terms of service that requires waiver of any right to a jury trial. Instead, they were required to submit to binding arbitration.		A New Jersey couple who was injured while taking a ride they arranged through [[Uber]] was found to be legally precluded from litigation because of a clause in Uber's [[terms of service]] that requires waiver of any right to a jury trial. Instead, they were required to submit to [[Forced arbitration\|binding arbitration]].

	== ~~Factual~~ Background ==		==Background==

	On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride ~~via~~ ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages."<ref name="coa" /> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. ~~However~~, ~~those claims~~ were not ~~implicated~~ by Uber's terms of service.</ref>		On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride through the ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages".<ref name="coa" /> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. Those claims, however, were not governed by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

	=== Uber's ~~Terms~~ of ~~Service~~ ===		===Uber's terms of service===

	The relevant portion of Uber's terms of service is, as quoted by the appellate court (alterations in original):		The relevant portion of Uber's terms of service is, as quoted by the appellate court (alterations in original):<ref name="coa" />

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating ~~to . . .~~ (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, [or] (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the ~~Services …~~ will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law.~~<ref name="coa" />~~</blockquote>		You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to… (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, [or] (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services… will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law.</blockquote>


	== Trial ~~Court Proceedings~~ ==		== 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 ~~via~~ the Uber Eats app on two occasions: initially on April 1, 2021, and then 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.		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" ~~via~~ 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.		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.

	== Appeal ==		==Appeal==

	Uber appealed the court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. There were three issues decided on appeal: (1) whether the arbitration provision in Uber's terms of service was enforceable, (2) the McGintys were bound by their daughter's accepting the terms, and (3) whether John McGinty was bound by an agreement made on his wife's account.		Uber appealed the court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. There were three issues decided on appeal: (1) whether the arbitration provision in Uber's terms of service was enforceable, (2) whether the McGintys were bound by their daughter's accepting the terms, and (3) whether John McGinty was bound by an agreement made on his wife's account.

	The appellate court found in favor of Uber on the first two points, and that the third must be decided by the (eventual) arbitrator.		The appellate court found in favor of Uber on the first two points, and that the third must be decided by the (eventual) arbitrator.

	=== The ~~Arbitration Provision~~ ===		===The arbitration provision===

	First, terms of service and other such agreements are generally treated as contracts.		First, terms of service and other such agreements are generally treated as contracts.

	The Superior Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the terms were ambiguous as to whether the plaintiffs would be agreeing to waive their right to a jury trial. While noting that "New Jersey has a long-standing policy of protecting the right to access its courts" such that "waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary," prior decisions by the New Jersey Supreme Court also state that an arbitration requirement does not have to contain any specific set of words to be enforceable.		The Superior Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the terms were ambiguous as to whether the plaintiffs would be agreeing to waive their right to a jury trial. While noting that "New Jersey has a long-standing policy of protecting the right to access its courts" such that "waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary", prior decisions by the New Jersey Supreme Court also state that an arbitration requirement does not have to contain any specific set of words to be enforceable.

	The Superior Court then noted that the terms of service specifically state that any claims against Uber will be settled by arbitration "and not in a court of law."<ref name="coa" /> This language, the court held, was sufficiently clear to put the plaintiffs on notice that by agreeing to the terms, they would be waiving their right to file suit.		The Superior Court then noted that the terms of service specifically state that any claims against Uber will be settled by arbitration "and not in a court of law".<ref name="coa" /> This language, the court held, was sufficiently clear to put the plaintiffs on notice that by agreeing to the terms, they would be waiving their right to file suit.

	=== The ~~Daughter~~'s ~~Acceptance~~ ===		===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>		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.		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.

	=== Mr. McGinty ===		===Mr. McGinty===

	As relevant here, Uber's terms of service state that the arbitration agreement is also binding on "any claims brought by or against any third parties."<ref name="coa" /> The court did not specifically decide this question. It did ~~explain~~, however, that an arbitration agreement signed by one person ''may'' be enforceable against another where that individual is what is known as a ~~'''~~third-party beneficiary~~'''~~ to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Whether Mr. McGinty is subject to Uber's terms of service as agreed to by his wife was found to be a question of the scope of the agreement between Uber and Mrs. McGinty. Per the provisions of those terms, such a question must be decided by the arbitrator.		As relevant here, Uber's terms of service state that the arbitration agreement is also binding on "any claims brought by or against any third parties".<ref name="coa" /> The court did not specifically decide this question. It did, however, explain that an arbitration agreement signed by one person may be enforceable against another where that individual is what is known as a third-party beneficiary to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Whether Mr. McGinty is subject to Uber's terms of service as agreed to by his wife was found to be a question of the scope of the agreement between Uber and Mrs. McGinty. Per the provisions of those terms, such a question must be decided by the arbitrator.

	== Notes ==		==Notes==
	<references group="footnotes" />		<references group="footnotes" />

	== References ==		==References==
	<references />		<references />

SirHumphrey: Initial creation

2025-01-22T20:36:15Z

Initial creation

New page

A New Jersey couple who was injured while taking a ride they arranged via Uber was found to be legally precluded from suing due to a clause in Uber's terms of service that requires waiver of any right to a jury trial. Instead, they were required to submit to binding arbitration.

== Factual Background ==

On March 31, 2022, Georgia McGinty and her husband, John McGinty, hailed a ride via ride-sharing app Uber.<ref name="coa">[https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf ''McGinty v. Uber Technologies, Inc.''], Docket No. A-1368-23 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, September 20, 2024) (unpublished opinion).</ref> The driver of their car ran a red light and hit another vehicle. As a result, the couple sustained "serious physical, psychological, and financial damages."<ref name="coa" /> The McGintys filed suit on February 23, 2023, naming Uber and one of its subsidiaries as defendants.<ref group="footnotes">The couple also named the driver they had hired, the driver of the other car involved, and the owner of that vehicle. However, those claims were not implicated by Uber's terms of service.</ref>

=== Uber's Terms of Service ===

The relevant portion of Uber's terms of service is, as quoted by the appellate court (alterations in original):

<blockquote>
You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to . . . (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, [or] (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services … will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law.<ref name="coa" /></blockquote>

== 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 via the Uber Eats app on two occasions: initially on April 1, 2021, and then 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" via 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.

== Appeal ==

Uber appealed the court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. There were three issues decided on appeal: (1) whether the arbitration provision in Uber's terms of service was enforceable, (2) the McGintys were bound by their daughter's accepting the terms, and (3) whether John McGinty was bound by an agreement made on his wife's account.

The appellate court found in favor of Uber on the first two points, and that the third must be decided by the (eventual) arbitrator.

=== The Arbitration Provision ===

First, terms of service and other such agreements are generally treated as contracts.

The Superior Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the terms were ambiguous as to whether the plaintiffs would be agreeing to waive their right to a jury trial. While noting that "New Jersey has a long-standing policy of protecting the right to access its courts" such that "waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary," prior decisions by the New Jersey Supreme Court also state that an arbitration requirement does not have to contain any specific set of words to be enforceable.

The Superior Court then noted that the terms of service specifically state that any claims against Uber will be settled by arbitration "and not in a court of law."<ref name="coa" /> This language, the court held, was sufficiently clear to put the plaintiffs on notice that by agreeing to the terms, they would be waiving their right to file suit.

=== 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.

=== Mr. McGinty ===

As relevant here, Uber's terms of service state that the arbitration agreement is also binding on "any claims brought by or against any third parties."<ref name="coa" /> The court did not specifically decide this question. It did explain, however, that an arbitration agreement signed by one person ''may'' be enforceable against another where that individual is what is known as a '''third-party beneficiary''' to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Whether Mr. McGinty is subject to Uber's terms of service as agreed to by his wife was found to be a question of the scope of the agreement between Uber and Mrs. McGinty. Per the provisions of those terms, such a question must be decided by the arbitrator.

== Notes ==
<references group="footnotes" />

== References ==
<references />