Court Says Uber Can’t Hold Users to Terms They Didn't Agree To
upstart writes in with an IRC submission:
Court says Uber can't hold users to terms they probably didn't read:
The highest state court in Massachusetts has rejected Uber's efforts to force a blind man's discrimination claims to be settled in arbitration. In the process, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court raised the bar for technology companies trying to impose one-sided terms of service on users without providing clear notice that they were doing so.
When Christopher Kauders signed up for an Uber account several years ago, he had to fill out three screens of information. The third screen was titled "link payment" and offered users various ways to pay for Uber rides. Below these options was a message that stated that "by creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy."
Users could click on a link to view these legal documents, but the app didn't require users to do so. At no point was Kauders required to click an "I agree" button.
[...] But on appeal, Kauders' lawyers argued that he had never agreed to arbitration in the first place. On Monday, the highest state court in Massachusetts accepted Kauders' argument, holding that merely mentioning terms and conditions on a registration page wasn't sufficient to create a binding contract between Kauders and Uber.
"Uber's terms and conditions did not constitute a contract with the plaintiffs," the high court wrote (another woman had also sued Uber). The case was sent back down to the lower court.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.