3 ms·

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 (t

by nutjob2 11d 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 11d ago
It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.
- nutjob2 11d ago
  Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?
waiwai933 11d 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 11d 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 11d 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 11d ago
[deleted]

by nutjob2 11d ago

asdfaoeu 11d ago

It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.

nutjob2 11d ago
Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?

waiwai933 11d 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 11d 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 11d 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 11d ago

[deleted]