Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid.
The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that they could NOT sue because those terms of service were legally binding for all Uber interactions
Not quite, the parents created an Uber Ride and Uber Eats accounts several years ago, agreeing to the ToS at that time.
Several months ago, uber updated the tos and pushed it out to users as a pop up agreement.
The daughter was monitoring the phone to watch the driver and pizza on the map when the pop up blocked the app, the daughter, being a minority who wanted her to pizza just hit “accept” to go back to the app to watch get pizza.
Several months later, the parents hooked an uber ride, where the driver crashes and injured the parent’s.
Uber is claiming that because the daughter agreed to the ToS, the new ToS is valid.
The parents only ever had the opportunity to read the original ToS, which also has a similar arbitration clause, which is why the lawyer is saying the daughters pizza situation was mooting. But the two ToS are different because one is an updated version of the other.
Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid.
The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that they could NOT sue because those terms of service were legally binding for all Uber interactions
Not quite, the parents created an Uber Ride and Uber Eats accounts several years ago, agreeing to the ToS at that time.
Several months ago, uber updated the tos and pushed it out to users as a pop up agreement.
The daughter was monitoring the phone to watch the driver and pizza on the map when the pop up blocked the app, the daughter, being a minority who wanted her to pizza just hit “accept” to go back to the app to watch get pizza.
Several months later, the parents hooked an uber ride, where the driver crashes and injured the parent’s.
Uber is claiming that because the daughter agreed to the ToS, the new ToS is valid.
The parents only ever had the opportunity to read the original ToS, which also has a similar arbitration clause, which is why the lawyer is saying the daughters pizza situation was mooting. But the two ToS are different because one is an updated version of the other.
I’m surprised we don’t hear more about judges getting shanked for their shit reasoning.