7 ms·

Another title might be: "U.S. appeals court: Contracts with an arbitration clause are enforceable." Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. The court is

Another title might be: "U.S. appeals court: Contracts with an arbitration clause are enforceable." Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. The court is saying the contract is valid and the parties must work within the context of that contract.

creaghpatr 8y ago
If the ninth circuit won't overturn it, then it's safe to say no one will.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  Dammit. This is a true threat to everyman. Class actions don't benefit everyman directly, but they are indeed very powerful shapers of corporate behavior. Congress needs to act ... oh wait, silly me, I forgot they are beholden to corporations not voters.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    November is coming.
    - dmoy 8y ago
      Wait, what happens to the 9th circuit in November?
Y_Y 8y ago
Can't Uber force a driver it has a dispute with to engage in binding arbitration, rather than resolve the case in court, which is typically the entitlement of both parties?
- roywiggins 8y ago
  If the driver agreed to a contract that has a clause that expressly said that they could, then yes. The court ruled that such clauses in contracts can be enforced. Without the contract saying so, Uber wouldn't have been able to do this at all.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The contract does say so, though. “Without the contract saying so...” is a counterfactual with no relevance to the actual situation.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In theory, people enter into contracts under their own free will. In reality, Uber has tremendous relative power in that relationship, like every relationship between a large corporation and an individual worker. Contract law, if I understand correctly, takes into account the relative power of the parties. As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; many/most will not grasp the legal implications and they almost certainly can't negotiate it. I'm not saying that invalidates all contracts and that the employee has no free choice, but it's false to say that Uber does not have much greater leverage.
- capdeck 8y ago
  > As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; I don't understand how legal system can be fair till the above is true. Individual, from the start, is on the loosing side. It should be illegal to sign things you are not qualified to understand. You can't get a prescription medication without a doctor reviewing your case first -- why can you sign a 100-page legalese? You are certain not to know what you are doing. Arbitration is nothing more than a spectacle. Everyone is on the company payroll there, directly or otherwise -- house always wins.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Or at least there can be consumer protection laws which limit the power of such agreements, a la Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope > "Unfair terms are void, where they appear in standard form contracts signed with individuals "whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption."' This would not apply to the Uber driver case, but it would be a welcome change nonetheless.
  - currymj 8y ago
    My understanding is that arbitrators do actually rule against the company from time to time, it's not a pure rubber stamp. It seems like one thing to do would be to make sure to rule against the company for small cases with limited damages, to keep up your credibility and ensure that the big cases always go in the company's favor. I don't know if arbitrators do this, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Spivak 8y ago
This argument is silly and ignores the power imbalance between employer and employee. We would be better of saying no company can offer employment on $obviously_bad_for_employee terms than letting the 'market' decide. Every employer benefits from this arrangement and no employer would have it in their contract if it didn't benefit them. The power to just change jobs isn't as common and people on HN believe and that power is meaningless when most employers require arbitration. And why wouldn't they, it directly affects their bottom line.
- mbrameld 8y ago
  > no employer would have it in their contract if it didn't benefit them Isn't that true of every item in the contract when it comes down to it, though?
  - colanderman 8y ago
    Yes, which is why, for example, contracts waiving basic labor rights are illegal. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Illegal_contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Illegal_contracts
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    Between entities of similar power, contracts contain terms to protect both parties. When one entity has more power than the other, the terms are used to further empower them at the cost of the other.
- sneak 8y ago
  Who are you to decide what is obviously bad for someone else? Leave contract contents to those adults who participate in them. If either of the parties think provisions are “obviously bad”, then they won’t sign.
  - pc86 8y ago
    I mean that's a pretty elementary interpretation to say the least. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are considering Uber for a few extra dollars every week are you going to care whether or not there is an arbitration clause? Even if you know it's bad you might be willing to risk it.
brightball 8y ago
I will never understand why it’s such a hot topic that the terms people agree to...are the actual terms.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  Because there are some terms which are antithetical to law. If you sign a contract stating that you're willing to become someone's slave for $x, that violates natural rights and would be voided by a court.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Because it’s almost universally agreed that some terms are not acceptable and thus not enforceable. Selling yourself into slavery is a common example. More gentle would be a contract where you agree to a pay rate that is less than the minimum wage. The disagreement is merely over which side of that line arbitration clauses fall on. I happen to think that the right to have your grievances heard in court should be considered fundamental and inalienable.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    Indeed. Minimum wage laws will probably soon no longer apply, because nearly all laws are superseded by arbitration, including state ones. It will not be long until we reach that point where you can easily and accidentally agree to work for 1c/hr with a carefully contrived contract. And, as long as they can secure an arbiter to rule against you for signing that employment agreement, you will be subject to it.
    - r_smart 8y ago
      But not required to continue working there. It should be pretty easy to find a job that pays more than 1c/hr.
      - Goronmon 8y ago
        Not if the contract also includes an endless non-compete clause preventing you from ever finding another job.
mikeash 8y ago
The contract already exists with the drivers and already contains that clause. The court ruled that, as a consequence, Uber can force the drivers into arbitration. The word “forced” is perfectly reasonable to use here. If I signed a contract requiring me to pay money, and I didn’t want to pay, and finally a court ruled that I had to pay; it would be fine to state that the court ruled the other party can force me to pay.
- gwright 8y ago
  Except that the headline as written suggests that Uber is doing something unfair. Since it is the drivers' appeal that has been rejected by the Court maybe some alternative headline could have been: "Court Reminds Uber Drivers that Contracts Are Enforceable" or "Drivers Waste Court Resources Only To Discover That Contracts Are Enforceable"
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Only if you think “forced” is somehow inherently unfair.
    - gwright 8y ago
      Well, yes. That is my point. The framing is designed to make you think Uber has done something unfair. Different framing would either not be news "Contracts are enforceable" or be designed to make you think the drivers did something wrong "Drivers Waste Court's Time". Of the three I think the "Uber did something wrong" framing is least accurate, but is probably the best clickbait.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        My point is that "forced" doesn't imply anything about which side is right. The side doing the forcing is often in the right. Your other framings are completely bogus. They miss the actual news, which is that arbitration clauses, specifically, are enforceable. This was an open question with good reasons to think they wouldn't be, so "Contracts Are Enforceable" doesn't capture what's interesting about it, and "Drivers Waste Court's Time" is just plain wrong.
mmcwilliams 8y ago
To be literal and pedantic, the term of art that is being "enforced" here is "forced arbitration".
forkerenok 8y ago
> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In my view one cannot pull this argument when talking about a dominant player in the market (which, I believe, Uber is, in many cities).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
will_brown 8y ago
Very HN of you to replace force in the title with “enforce”. Here it is in a sentence: By enforcing the terms of the agreement, Uber forced binding arbitration on the contractor. If the contractor Filed a Complaint before a court in breach of the arbitration provision of the contract, Uber could have waived its contractual right to arbitration and allowed the case to proceed, but instead they forced the contractor into arbitration by enforcing the agreement. There is an obvious reason Uber elects to put the arbitration provision in its agreements and there is a reason they didn’t waive that provision when push cane to shove...it benefits Uber.
- gwright 8y ago
  The point I was trying to make that the court/law is the enforcer here, not Uber. I think the headline is misleading in this respect. Your point that a party to a contract could waive their contractual rights is true but I would also argue that you are also choosing words to frame the narrative when you say the Uber "forced the contractor" rather than saying that Uber exercised its contractual rights to resolve the dispute via arbitration. In fact isn't the contractor who is trying to "force" Uber to give up its contractual rights by claiming that the contractual terms aren't valid? [edit: corrected are to aren't] There is a larger discussion about the value/fairness of arbitration as a mechanism but as I understand it, it is established law that arbitration clauses are legal and I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has "forced" someone to enter into the driver's contract with Uber.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    The law doesn't force them into arbitration, Uber's contract does. The law says Uber can force arbitration.
    - patejam 8y ago
      I think the idea is that "force" sounds like Uber is doing it without a prior arbitration agreement. "Enforce" sounds like Uber is doing it after an agreement with drivers. The latter is what is actually happening. It's a small difference but it matters. The power difference is a separate issue between employers and employees is a separate (important) issue, though.
wlesieutre 8y ago
What happens when literally every contract requires you to agree to arbitration? That seems to be the direction things are going. Sorry, can't sell you groceries unless you sign this.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  That is the direction it is going. You will soon be unable to conduct your life w/o losing your fundamental rights to contracts of adhesion with losing terms and being bound by the whims of an arbiter who's not subject to regard for the law.[1] [1] http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/05/17/the-curious-case-of-manifest-disregard-of-the-law/ http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/05/17/the-...
odyssey7 8y ago
This comment overlooks the fact that the U.S. court system is currently disagreeing with itself over whether the practice of forced individual arbitration is illegal or not. The last time SCOTUS had a case about this in I think 2016, they divided sharply by one vote. This is yet another case involving it where the courts who saw it disagreed with each other.
ergothus 8y ago
When my (now ex-) wife was going to law school, one of the biggest surprises I had was learning how often contracts aren't entirely binding (as long as you have the money to actually go to court with real representation). It's easy to think "You agreed, it's clear that you agreed, end of story" but that's not the way contract law actually works. If the parties aren't both getting a roughly equal deal and operating with roughly equal levels of good faith, everything changes. And overall, that's a good thing. "If you don't like it, do something else" isn't much of an option when there's no other "real" option. "Go found your own company that works differently" is a farce for the vast majority of the population.
- rectang 8y ago
  > (as long as you have the money to actually go to court with real representation) The theoretical ability to contest contract provisions is close to meaningless because the cost of litigation makes it inaccessible for the vast majority of the American people. Arbitration puts justice even further out of reach.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    No argument here (though I have no real solution to that problem. Denying everyone lawyers doesn't help, it just slightly shifts who suffers). My point was that on this and related topics the "It's a contract, suck it up" type responses are based on a flawed basis, not that the result is actually just or fair.
- SilasX 8y ago
  There's no real option to working as an Uber driver? Edit: I'm sorry, the parent comment was predicted on applying "there is no alternative" to the situation "whether you contract for Uber". That doesn't make sense, and I'd appreciate an answer besides a downvote. It seems like a fair question.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    If you don't like the Uber terms but are trying to make money driving people, you have severely limited options as to your alternatives to drive for, and I'd not be surprised if they all had arbitration clauses as well. saying "If you don't like the terms, go somewhere else" is likely an illusion of choice and not a practical option.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

creaghpatr 8y ago

If the ninth circuit won't overturn it, then it's safe to say no one will.

jiveturkey 8y ago
Dammit. This is a true threat to everyman. Class actions don't benefit everyman directly, but they are indeed very powerful shapers of corporate behavior. Congress needs to act ... oh wait, silly me, I forgot they are beholden to corporations not voters.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  November is coming.
  - dmoy 8y ago
    Wait, what happens to the 9th circuit in November?

Y_Y 8y ago

Can't Uber force a driver it has a dispute with to engage in binding arbitration, rather than resolve the case in court, which is typically the entitlement of both parties?

roywiggins 8y ago
If the driver agreed to a contract that has a clause that expressly said that they could, then yes. The court ruled that such clauses in contracts can be enforced. Without the contract saying so, Uber wouldn't have been able to do this at all.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The contract does say so, though. “Without the contract saying so...” is a counterfactual with no relevance to the actual situation.

forapurpose 8y ago

> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In theory, people enter into contracts under their own free will. In reality, Uber has tremendous relative power in that relationship, like every relationship between a large corporation and an individual worker. Contract law, if I understand correctly, takes into account the relative power of the parties. As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; many/most will not grasp the legal implications and they almost certainly can't negotiate it. I'm not saying that invalidates all contracts and that the employee has no free choice, but it's false to say that Uber does not have much greater leverage.

capdeck 8y ago
> As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; I don't understand how legal system can be fair till the above is true. Individual, from the start, is on the loosing side. It should be illegal to sign things you are not qualified to understand. You can't get a prescription medication without a doctor reviewing your case first -- why can you sign a 100-page legalese? You are certain not to know what you are doing. Arbitration is nothing more than a spectacle. Everyone is on the company payroll there, directly or otherwise -- house always wins.
- rectang 8y ago
  Or at least there can be consumer protection laws which limit the power of such agreements, a la Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope > "Unfair terms are void, where they appear in standard form contracts signed with individuals "whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption."' This would not apply to the Uber driver case, but it would be a welcome change nonetheless.
- currymj 8y ago
  My understanding is that arbitrators do actually rule against the company from time to time, it's not a pure rubber stamp. It seems like one thing to do would be to make sure to rule against the company for small cases with limited damages, to keep up your credibility and ensure that the big cases always go in the company's favor. I don't know if arbitrators do this, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Spivak 8y ago

This argument is silly and ignores the power imbalance between employer and employee. We would be better of saying no company can offer employment on $obviously_bad_for_employee terms than letting the 'market' decide. Every employer benefits from this arrangement and no employer would have it in their contract if it didn't benefit them. The power to just change jobs isn't as common and people on HN believe and that power is meaningless when most employers require arbitration. And why wouldn't they, it directly affects their bottom line.

mbrameld 8y ago
> no employer would have it in their contract if it didn't benefit them Isn't that true of every item in the contract when it comes down to it, though?
- colanderman 8y ago
  Yes, which is why, for example, contracts waiving basic labor rights are illegal. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Illegal_contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Illegal_contracts
- vertex-four 8y ago
  Between entities of similar power, contracts contain terms to protect both parties. When one entity has more power than the other, the terms are used to further empower them at the cost of the other.
sneak 8y ago
Who are you to decide what is obviously bad for someone else? Leave contract contents to those adults who participate in them. If either of the parties think provisions are “obviously bad”, then they won’t sign.
- pc86 8y ago
  I mean that's a pretty elementary interpretation to say the least. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are considering Uber for a few extra dollars every week are you going to care whether or not there is an arbitration clause? Even if you know it's bad you might be willing to risk it.

brightball 8y ago

I will never understand why it’s such a hot topic that the terms people agree to...are the actual terms.

DINKDINK 8y ago
Because there are some terms which are antithetical to law. If you sign a contract stating that you're willing to become someone's slave for $x, that violates natural rights and would be voided by a court.
mikeash 8y ago
Because it’s almost universally agreed that some terms are not acceptable and thus not enforceable. Selling yourself into slavery is a common example. More gentle would be a contract where you agree to a pay rate that is less than the minimum wage. The disagreement is merely over which side of that line arbitration clauses fall on. I happen to think that the right to have your grievances heard in court should be considered fundamental and inalienable.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Indeed. Minimum wage laws will probably soon no longer apply, because nearly all laws are superseded by arbitration, including state ones. It will not be long until we reach that point where you can easily and accidentally agree to work for 1c/hr with a carefully contrived contract. And, as long as they can secure an arbiter to rule against you for signing that employment agreement, you will be subject to it.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    But not required to continue working there. It should be pretty easy to find a job that pays more than 1c/hr.
    - Goronmon 8y ago
      Not if the contract also includes an endless non-compete clause preventing you from ever finding another job.

mikeash 8y ago

The contract already exists with the drivers and already contains that clause. The court ruled that, as a consequence, Uber can force the drivers into arbitration. The word “forced” is perfectly reasonable to use here. If I signed a contract requiring me to pay money, and I didn’t want to pay, and finally a court ruled that I had to pay; it would be fine to state that the court ruled the other party can force me to pay.

gwright 8y ago
Except that the headline as written suggests that Uber is doing something unfair. Since it is the drivers' appeal that has been rejected by the Court maybe some alternative headline could have been: "Court Reminds Uber Drivers that Contracts Are Enforceable" or "Drivers Waste Court Resources Only To Discover That Contracts Are Enforceable"
- mikeash 8y ago
  Only if you think “forced” is somehow inherently unfair.
  - gwright 8y ago
    Well, yes. That is my point. The framing is designed to make you think Uber has done something unfair. Different framing would either not be news "Contracts are enforceable" or be designed to make you think the drivers did something wrong "Drivers Waste Court's Time". Of the three I think the "Uber did something wrong" framing is least accurate, but is probably the best clickbait.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      My point is that "forced" doesn't imply anything about which side is right. The side doing the forcing is often in the right. Your other framings are completely bogus. They miss the actual news, which is that arbitration clauses, specifically, are enforceable. This was an open question with good reasons to think they wouldn't be, so "Contracts Are Enforceable" doesn't capture what's interesting about it, and "Drivers Waste Court's Time" is just plain wrong.

mmcwilliams 8y ago

To be literal and pedantic, the term of art that is being "enforced" here is "forced arbitration".

forkerenok 8y ago

> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In my view one cannot pull this argument when talking about a dominant player in the market (which, I believe, Uber is, in many cities).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

will_brown 8y ago

Very HN of you to replace force in the title with “enforce”. Here it is in a sentence: By enforcing the terms of the agreement, Uber forced binding arbitration on the contractor. If the contractor Filed a Complaint before a court in breach of the arbitration provision of the contract, Uber could have waived its contractual right to arbitration and allowed the case to proceed, but instead they forced the contractor into arbitration by enforcing the agreement. There is an obvious reason Uber elects to put the arbitration provision in its agreements and there is a reason they didn’t waive that provision when push cane to shove...it benefits Uber.

gwright 8y ago
The point I was trying to make that the court/law is the enforcer here, not Uber. I think the headline is misleading in this respect. Your point that a party to a contract could waive their contractual rights is true but I would also argue that you are also choosing words to frame the narrative when you say the Uber "forced the contractor" rather than saying that Uber exercised its contractual rights to resolve the dispute via arbitration. In fact isn't the contractor who is trying to "force" Uber to give up its contractual rights by claiming that the contractual terms aren't valid? [edit: corrected are to aren't] There is a larger discussion about the value/fairness of arbitration as a mechanism but as I understand it, it is established law that arbitration clauses are legal and I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has "forced" someone to enter into the driver's contract with Uber.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  The law doesn't force them into arbitration, Uber's contract does. The law says Uber can force arbitration.
  - patejam 8y ago
    I think the idea is that "force" sounds like Uber is doing it without a prior arbitration agreement. "Enforce" sounds like Uber is doing it after an agreement with drivers. The latter is what is actually happening. It's a small difference but it matters. The power difference is a separate issue between employers and employees is a separate (important) issue, though.

wlesieutre 8y ago

What happens when literally every contract requires you to agree to arbitration? That seems to be the direction things are going. Sorry, can't sell you groceries unless you sign this.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
That is the direction it is going. You will soon be unable to conduct your life w/o losing your fundamental rights to contracts of adhesion with losing terms and being bound by the whims of an arbiter who's not subject to regard for the law.[1] [1] http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/05/17/the-curious-case-of-manifest-disregard-of-the-law/ http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/05/17/the-...

odyssey7 8y ago

This comment overlooks the fact that the U.S. court system is currently disagreeing with itself over whether the practice of forced individual arbitration is illegal or not. The last time SCOTUS had a case about this in I think 2016, they divided sharply by one vote. This is yet another case involving it where the courts who saw it disagreed with each other.

ergothus 8y ago

When my (now ex-) wife was going to law school, one of the biggest surprises I had was learning how often contracts aren't entirely binding (as long as you have the money to actually go to court with real representation). It's easy to think "You agreed, it's clear that you agreed, end of story" but that's not the way contract law actually works. If the parties aren't both getting a roughly equal deal and operating with roughly equal levels of good faith, everything changes. And overall, that's a good thing. "If you don't like it, do something else" isn't much of an option when there's no other "real" option. "Go found your own company that works differently" is a farce for the vast majority of the population.

rectang 8y ago
> (as long as you have the money to actually go to court with real representation) The theoretical ability to contest contract provisions is close to meaningless because the cost of litigation makes it inaccessible for the vast majority of the American people. Arbitration puts justice even further out of reach.
- ergothus 8y ago
  No argument here (though I have no real solution to that problem. Denying everyone lawyers doesn't help, it just slightly shifts who suffers). My point was that on this and related topics the "It's a contract, suck it up" type responses are based on a flawed basis, not that the result is actually just or fair.
SilasX 8y ago
There's no real option to working as an Uber driver? Edit: I'm sorry, the parent comment was predicted on applying "there is no alternative" to the situation "whether you contract for Uber". That doesn't make sense, and I'd appreciate an answer besides a downvote. It seems like a fair question.
- ergothus 8y ago
  If you don't like the Uber terms but are trying to make money driving people, you have severely limited options as to your alternatives to drive for, and I'd not be surprised if they all had arbitration clauses as well. saying "If you don't like the terms, go somewhere else" is likely an illusion of choice and not a practical option.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]