Massachusetts Allows Uber to Force Paralyzed Rider to Arbitrate

Uber can require that a passenger seriously injured in a crash involving an Uber driver go to arbitration over his $63 million damages claim without a trial, the highest court in Massachusetts recently ruled, overturning a lower court.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in a 5-1 ruling found that the transport company’s app that matches riders with drivers creates an enforceable contract between Uber and riders that includes an arbitration clause.

William Good, who sued Uber and the driver after he was rendered a quadriplegic in a crash, had asserted that a contract requiring arbitration was not formed because he neither had reasonable notice of Uber’s terms of use nor had he manifested assent to the terms.

Uber and the driver involved in the crash contended that the app’s terms of use bound Good to pursue his negligence claims only through arbitration and they sought an order to compel him to submit to arbitration.

In 2022, a state trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that Uber’s online notice was insufficient to form a binding contract.

Uber and the driver appealed that decision, and the SJC overruled that 2022 motion denial, finding that Good must submit to arbitration because the Uber interface satisfies two key elements of a contract: reasonable notice and reasonable assent.

The high court’s majority was impressed with how Uber presented its terms and obtained Good’s assent through an app with a blocking feature. This popup prevented Good from continuing to use Uber’s services on his phone unless Good both clicked a checkbox that he had “reviewed and agreed” to the terms and activated a button labeled “Confirm.” The blocking interface included a graphic image of a clipboard holding a document; near the bottom of the document was an “X” alongside a pencil poised as if to sign a legal instrument.

The high court concluded that these and other features of Uber’s “clickwrap” contract put Good on reasonable notice of Uber’s terms of use, one of which was to arbitrate disputes concerning personal injuries.

The high court said the fact that Good chose not to read the document “does not detract from the reasonableness of the notice provided.”