Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,

109 F.Supp.3d 1185 (2015)

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

Gillette (P) was hired by Abbey Lane Limousine, which provides limousine and car services. Abbey's owner opened an Uber account for Gillette (P) shortly thereafter. Gillette (P) 'met with a D representative at one of D's San Francisco office locations . . . passed a short test given on a tablet device, and had my picture taken.' Gillette (P) began driving an Abbey vehicle on the UberBlack service shortly thereafter. Gillette (P) used a smartphone to access the D application while working as a D driver. The phone belonged in each Abbey vehicle that Gillette (P) drove. D notified its drivers via email that 'it was planning on rolling out a Software License and Online Services Agreement . . . and Driver Addendum within the next couple of weeks.' Gillette (P) did not provide an email account so he claimed he never got a notice from D. On the relevant date Gillette (P) logged into the D application on Abbey’s cell phone and was presented with a screen about the updated contracts with D. Drivers could click links to read the updated contracts or simply acknowledge that they agreed to the new terms. D claims that Gillette (P) clicked the link to agree to the terms on July 29, 2013. Gillette (P) has no recollection of making a choice. Mohamed (P) began driving as an UberBlack driver sometime in 2012. Mohamed (P) clicked to accept the 2013 Agreement. One year later, Mohamed (P) was prompted to electronically accept D's 2014 Software License and Online Services Agreement (2014 Agreement). The 2014 Agreement used the same software protocol as the 2013 Agreement (i.e., clicking 'Yes, I agree' when prompted by the Uber application, and then once more confirming agreement on the next application screen). D claims that Mohamed (D) pressed the relevant on-screen buttons. Mohamed (P) applied to drive as an UberX driver but was told that he needed to get a new car for the position. Mohamed (P) purchased a new vehicle for approximately $25,000. On October 3, 2014, D claims that Mohamed (P) accepted the 2014 Rasier Software Sublicense & Online Services Agreement (2014 Rasier Agreement) through the same process as the other two agreements. D declined to approve Mohamed's (P) application because of information obtained through the Consumer Reporting Agency. Ps never received a paper copy of any of the contracts. Ps could have viewed or downloaded copies of the agreements from their 'online driver portals.' Mohamed's (P) counsel further contends that 'His ability to speak and understand English is extremely limited, and an interpreter's assistance has been required to communicate with [him].' Ps argue in part that the arbitration provisions contained in the relevant contracts cannot be enforced against them because they never assented to be bound by those contracts.