Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

868 F.3d 66 (2nd Cir. 2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D offers a software application for smartphones that allows riders to request rides from third-party drivers. P registered for an Uber account with the Uber App on a Samsung Galaxy S5 phone running an Android operating system. D took ten rides with Uber drivers and then brought this class action alleging that the Uber application allows third-party drivers to illegally fix prices. D moved to compel arbitration. Attached to a declaration were screenshots of the two screens that a user registering in October 2014 with an Android-operated smartphone would have seen during the registration process. The first screen includes fields for the user to enter his or her name, email address, phone number, and a password. The Registration Screen also offers the user the option to register via a Google+ or Facebook account. D entered his personal information manually. After completing the information on the Registration Screen and clicking 'Next,' the user advances to a second screen labeled 'Payment' on which the user can enter credit card details or elect to make payments using PayPal or Google Wallet, third-party payment services. P entered his credit card information to pay for rides. To complete the process, the prospective user must click the button marked 'REGISTER' in the middle of the Payment Screen. Below the input fields and buttons on the Payment Screen is black text advising users that 'by creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY.' The capitalized phrase, which is bright blue and underlined, was a hyperlink that, when clicked, took the user to a third screen containing a button that, in turn, when clicked, would then display the current version of both D's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. P does not recall seeing or following the hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions. He declares that he did not read the Terms and Conditions, including the arbitration provision. The Terms of Service contained a mandatory arbitration clause. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that D did not have reasonably conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service and did not unambiguously manifest assent to the terms. D appealed.