Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Defendant

Uber Technologies

Defendants Contentions

Uber moved to dismiss the case on the arbitration provision.

Cause of Action

Arbitration Provision included in the terms of agreement

Issues of law

Can substantive unconsionability be used in preventing the enforcement of a contract when the plaintiff argues on unequal bargaining power?

Plaintiff

Jaswinder Singh

Material Facts

Jaswinder Singh is an Uber Driver and thus he had to accept the applicable Raiser Software License and Online service Agreement (Raiser Agreement). The plaintiff was required to confirm that he accepted and reviewed the agreement twice, however, he was unable to review the electronic document until three months after he accepted it. Within the agreement it included and Arbitration Provision, that will require the employee to resolve any claim it has against the Uber company and had a 30 day option to opt out of the clause. Given the terms of his contract, Singh filed a complaint with federal court.

Rules of Law

Substantive unconscionablilty

Final Ruling

The court dismissed the case in favor of arbitration.

Application of Rules

The plaintiff called the arbitration provision for having unequal bargaining power and that Uber was capitalizing on the agreement through the use of a standardized mass contract; which prevents objections or opting out. Also that the language of the clause restricts the parties statutory rights. The court decided that the plaintiff was able to decline the provision and had simply summarized the terms of the agreement. Plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of incurring expensive cost, thus lacking substantive unconscionability.

Plaintiffs contentions

The plaintiff held that Uber (1) misclassified him and other Uber drivers as independent contractors, as opposed to employees; (2) failed to pay overtime compensation; and (3) required the drivers to pay for significant business expenses that were incurred for the benefit of Uber. He argues that the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable and unconscionable.