I don't understand the focus on the pizza order. I guess it makes a better headline? There were multiple times the parents agreed to arbitration over the course of their using the Uber app. The pizza one was just the most recent. The real problem IMHO is forced arbitration in general, and click through contracts.
No. It is about the pizza order in the same way that Disney tried to get out of a wrongful death suit using terms in the Disney+ app account signup. No one ordering food or using a TV app knows about arbitration clauses which are so broad that they should be illegal.
But the pizza order was only one instance of several times the parents would have had to agree to arbitration. Even if the pizza has never happened, they would still have been stuck in arbitration.
The pizza order alone though was both necessary and sufficient for the company to claim that they were bound to arbitration for a car crash. That clauses such as that are legal alone is ridiculous to the concept of justice on its face.
So, by using the app, I'm not covered? Then if I'm not covered by any insurance from Uber, what does cover me as a user. Is it just my personal health insurance?
Asking for real. What is the way accidents are resolved? I'm suddenly a little hesitant to use Uber, because it is too risky.
I suspect they wanted to sue for a large payout, much more than covering health care costs. Notice their attorney refused to discuss the proposed amount. They figured a jury would give them more than an arbitrator paid by Uber.
This is pure speculation and unhelpful to the discussion. This sets a bad precedent for the reach of admissibility of T&C agreements, regardless of amount.
Discussion (60 points, 3 days ago, 58 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657
I don't understand the focus on the pizza order. I guess it makes a better headline? There were multiple times the parents agreed to arbitration over the course of their using the Uber app. The pizza one was just the most recent. The real problem IMHO is forced arbitration in general, and click through contracts.
> I guess it makes a better headline?
No. It is about the pizza order in the same way that Disney tried to get out of a wrongful death suit using terms in the Disney+ app account signup. No one ordering food or using a TV app knows about arbitration clauses which are so broad that they should be illegal.
But the pizza order was only one instance of several times the parents would have had to agree to arbitration. Even if the pizza has never happened, they would still have been stuck in arbitration.
The pizza order alone though was both necessary and sufficient for the company to claim that they were bound to arbitration for a car crash. That clauses such as that are legal alone is ridiculous to the concept of justice on its face.
So, by using the app, I'm not covered? Then if I'm not covered by any insurance from Uber, what does cover me as a user. Is it just my personal health insurance?
Asking for real. What is the way accidents are resolved? I'm suddenly a little hesitant to use Uber, because it is too risky.
I suspect they wanted to sue for a large payout, much more than covering health care costs. Notice their attorney refused to discuss the proposed amount. They figured a jury would give them more than an arbitrator paid by Uber.
This is pure speculation and unhelpful to the discussion. This sets a bad precedent for the reach of admissibility of T&C agreements, regardless of amount.
Just uber? Doesn't that practically apply to any app you use with any corporation?
Yes, of course you are correct. There was funny South Park where Apple confiscated the kids because the terms of service had signed away their life.
But in this specific case. Guess I'm now faced with this actual bodily harm, and it isn't a joke anymore.