5 ms·

So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the con

So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.

waiwai933 13d ago
I don't think there's anything to suggest Uber refused to pay the arbitration award? They just stated that they disagreed with the outcome. (Which is not to say there's not plenty to dislike about this whole case, including the fact it's forced arbitration...)
- nutjob2 13d ago
  In that case why is there a "settlement agreement" mentioned that has a $10M penalty for disparagement? Not sure what that refers to exactly but how can Uber (try to) dictate terms in the settlement? It does seem they're trying to get out of it somehow.
  - asdfaoeu 13d ago
    It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.
    - nutjob2 13d ago
      Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?
  - waiwai933 13d ago
    Looking at a filing by Uber (https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Technologies-Motion-for-Protective-Order.pdf https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Techn...), and in particular Exhibit 8, the ADR award is confirmed by a settlement agreement (and if no agreement is come to, then a civil action would confirm the terms of the award). There was a dispute about whether the amount awarded was confidential or not (Uber contended it was; plaintiff contended it wasn't), but on the face of it, had plaintiff agreed to the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, Uber would have paid up. I suppose it could be argued that Uber were trying to write in clauses they knew plaintiff wouldn't agree to, but it's not obvious to me that a different plaintiff wouldn't have agreed to confidentiality and non-disparagement. (FWIW, it's not clear to me whether Uber have now in fact paid up; they made a statement to the Guardian that _suggests_ they have, but the fact that they didn't explicitly say so means I wouldn't want to draw that inference)
    - TZubiri 13d ago
      I mean both are right, they made a bullshit filing about something being confidential, in order to negotiate a confidentiality settlement against it. It's minor, but they are not accepting the award as-is, they are still trying to negotiating, albeit in a minor way, not by contesting the amount, but a confidentiality clause. They love to negotiate confidentiality clauses, there's few cases without it, including a case by Mike Rafi's personal injury firm which resulted from an omission by Uber (and later Uber being much more anal about confidentiality). I think it's a strategy to avoid case law catching on.
      - onlypassingthru 13d ago
        It's a strategy to prevent other arbitrators from recognizing what a death is worth. Now everybody can google the case and adjust payouts accordingly.
  - deleted 13d ago
    [deleted]
- enahs-sf 13d ago
  Moreso it’s them whining about losing when and trying to add a non-disparagement clause at $10m per event to the settlement for even factual information relating to the case. Uber were the ones who forced arbitration ostensibly because it often lowers their overall legal and damages bills.
itopaloglu83 13d ago
Forced arbitration is creating a parallel legal system where certain companies are excluded from the consequences of their own actions. One might even say they’re becoming a protected class even.
- mchusma 13d ago
  I have been on both sides of arbitration, winning and losing. It’s much better. Basically legislation done right (for civil matters). The only people who really win from traditional legislation are lawyers (and plaintiffs counsel who use the long expensive process to blackmail people - which is 90% of civil cases)
  - z3ugma 13d ago
    Did you mean "litigation" rather than "legislation" ?
    - eru 13d ago
      I thought legislation made a lot of sense: If you had better laws, arbitration wouldn't be as necessary.
  - bickfordb 13d ago
    Arbitration can be more efficient, but both parties should have an option to choose it, a direct settlement or public court. The average consumer is denied the choice by using these everyday services that have non-negotiable contracts.
    - PunchyHamster 13d ago
      None of the parties should have option to choose it, it should be within govt. justice system, just have arbitration court
      - nickff 13d ago
traceroute66 13d ago
> Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration First to be clear, I am speaking in general terms. I know nothing about this case, I don't want to know anything about this case, but I have just scrolled through people's thoughts on arbitration here and thought I should offer a general alternative perspective. To be clear I'm not interested in blindly defending Uber either. So here goes... Arbitration clauses will be found pretty much everywhere. They come under the auspice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) of which the top-three ways are: mediation, arbitration and ombudsmen. The whole point of ADR is that: 1. there are only so many courts in a given jurisdiction and there are only so many judges in any jurisdiction, and both courts and judges tend to have large backlogs. 2. added to which going to court is expensive and time consuming. And if the other side has deep pockets and you loose, you end up paying the hourly rates of very expensive lawyers in smart shoes that the opposition employed because 600+/hour/person is peanuts to them. So that's where ADR comes in. Its more informal, its cheaper to do and the costs side if you loose are kept under control. Because ADR is an informal environment, this can also work in your favour. The timetable and parameters are flexible and the final agreement reached can easily be better than whatever a judge might have handed down after listening to both side's lawyers bicker. Of course, in most jurisdictions nothing stops you from going to court first if you like. But most modern-thinking judges tend to take a dim view if you turn up in front of them without having given some sort of ADR a go first. Is it perfect, of course not. But neither are the courts. Your outcome in court is effectively dependent on both side's lawyers and what judge you get, so you having a better outcome in court is not necessarily guaranteed !
- malfist 13d ago
  We all know the talking points from big corporations about why they force everyone into arbitration out of the goodness of their hearts. We don't need it regurgitated as if it's the truth.
  - traceroute66 13d ago
    > big corporations about why they force everyone into arbitration out of the goodness of their hearts. We don't need it regurgitated as if it's the truth. Its not a regurgitation. Its the facts. It applies to small businesses too. A mom and pop shop will (or should !) also have ADR clauses in its contracts. And the court will certainly take a very dim view if you try to sue a mom and pop shop without having tried ADR.

So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.

waiwai933 13d ago

I don't think there's anything to suggest Uber refused to pay the arbitration award? They just stated that they disagreed with the outcome. (Which is not to say there's not plenty to dislike about this whole case, including the fact it's forced arbitration...)

nutjob2 13d ago
In that case why is there a "settlement agreement" mentioned that has a $10M penalty for disparagement? Not sure what that refers to exactly but how can Uber (try to) dictate terms in the settlement? It does seem they're trying to get out of it somehow.
- asdfaoeu 13d ago
  It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.
  - nutjob2 13d ago
    Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?
- waiwai933 13d ago
  Looking at a filing by Uber (https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Technologies-Motion-for-Protective-Order.pdf https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Techn...), and in particular Exhibit 8, the ADR award is confirmed by a settlement agreement (and if no agreement is come to, then a civil action would confirm the terms of the award). There was a dispute about whether the amount awarded was confidential or not (Uber contended it was; plaintiff contended it wasn't), but on the face of it, had plaintiff agreed to the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, Uber would have paid up. I suppose it could be argued that Uber were trying to write in clauses they knew plaintiff wouldn't agree to, but it's not obvious to me that a different plaintiff wouldn't have agreed to confidentiality and non-disparagement. (FWIW, it's not clear to me whether Uber have now in fact paid up; they made a statement to the Guardian that _suggests_ they have, but the fact that they didn't explicitly say so means I wouldn't want to draw that inference)
  - TZubiri 13d ago
    I mean both are right, they made a bullshit filing about something being confidential, in order to negotiate a confidentiality settlement against it. It's minor, but they are not accepting the award as-is, they are still trying to negotiating, albeit in a minor way, not by contesting the amount, but a confidentiality clause. They love to negotiate confidentiality clauses, there's few cases without it, including a case by Mike Rafi's personal injury firm which resulted from an omission by Uber (and later Uber being much more anal about confidentiality). I think it's a strategy to avoid case law catching on.
    - onlypassingthru 13d ago
      It's a strategy to prevent other arbitrators from recognizing what a death is worth. Now everybody can google the case and adjust payouts accordingly.
- deleted 13d ago
  [deleted]
enahs-sf 13d ago
Moreso it’s them whining about losing when and trying to add a non-disparagement clause at $10m per event to the settlement for even factual information relating to the case. Uber were the ones who forced arbitration ostensibly because it often lowers their overall legal and damages bills.

itopaloglu83 13d ago

Forced arbitration is creating a parallel legal system where certain companies are excluded from the consequences of their own actions. One might even say they’re becoming a protected class even.

mchusma 13d ago
I have been on both sides of arbitration, winning and losing. It’s much better. Basically legislation done right (for civil matters). The only people who really win from traditional legislation are lawyers (and plaintiffs counsel who use the long expensive process to blackmail people - which is 90% of civil cases)
- z3ugma 13d ago
  Did you mean "litigation" rather than "legislation" ?
  - eru 13d ago
    I thought legislation made a lot of sense: If you had better laws, arbitration wouldn't be as necessary.
- bickfordb 13d ago
  Arbitration can be more efficient, but both parties should have an option to choose it, a direct settlement or public court. The average consumer is denied the choice by using these everyday services that have non-negotiable contracts.
  - PunchyHamster 13d ago
    None of the parties should have option to choose it, it should be within govt. justice system, just have arbitration court
    - nickff 13d ago

traceroute66 13d ago

> Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration First to be clear, I am speaking in general terms. I know nothing about this case, I don't want to know anything about this case, but I have just scrolled through people's thoughts on arbitration here and thought I should offer a general alternative perspective. To be clear I'm not interested in blindly defending Uber either. So here goes... Arbitration clauses will be found pretty much everywhere. They come under the auspice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) of which the top-three ways are: mediation, arbitration and ombudsmen. The whole point of ADR is that: 1. there are only so many courts in a given jurisdiction and there are only so many judges in any jurisdiction, and both courts and judges tend to have large backlogs. 2. added to which going to court is expensive and time consuming. And if the other side has deep pockets and you loose, you end up paying the hourly rates of very expensive lawyers in smart shoes that the opposition employed because 600+/hour/person is peanuts to them. So that's where ADR comes in. Its more informal, its cheaper to do and the costs side if you loose are kept under control. Because ADR is an informal environment, this can also work in your favour. The timetable and parameters are flexible and the final agreement reached can easily be better than whatever a judge might have handed down after listening to both side's lawyers bicker. Of course, in most jurisdictions nothing stops you from going to court first if you like. But most modern-thinking judges tend to take a dim view if you turn up in front of them without having given some sort of ADR a go first. Is it perfect, of course not. But neither are the courts. Your outcome in court is effectively dependent on both side's lawyers and what judge you get, so you having a better outcome in court is not necessarily guaranteed !

malfist 13d ago
We all know the talking points from big corporations about why they force everyone into arbitration out of the goodness of their hearts. We don't need it regurgitated as if it's the truth.
- traceroute66 13d ago
  > big corporations about why they force everyone into arbitration out of the goodness of their hearts. We don't need it regurgitated as if it's the truth. Its not a regurgitation. Its the facts. It applies to small businesses too. A mom and pop shop will (or should !) also have ADR clauses in its contracts. And the court will certainly take a very dim view if you try to sue a mom and pop shop without having tried ADR.