Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Uber’s (D) application matches users needing transportation with drivers willing to provide a ride. D presented its terms of use to Good (P) through its app in a manner that prevented P from continuing to use Uber's services on his cellular telephone unless P both “clicked” a checkbox indicating that he had “reviewed and agreed” to the terms and activated a button labeled “Confirm,” further indicating his assent. This blocking interface included a large graphic image (graphic) of a clipboard holding a document; near the bottom of the document was an “X” alongside a graphic of a pencil poised as if to sign a legal instrument. The interface was focused and uncluttered; it clearly alerted P multiple times, in prominent boldfaced text, that the purpose of the blocking screen was to notify P of Uber's terms of use. It encouraged P to review those terms and provided an identifiable hyperlink directly to the full text of the terms of use document. P opened D's app to secure a ride and was presented with a blocking screen, announcing that D had updated its terms of use. P clicked a checkbox next to the text indicating that he had “reviewed and agree[d]” to the terms. + also activated a button at the bottom of the interface labeled “Confirm.” During a second engagement 5 days later, the car collided with another vehicle. In the ensuing impact, P was thrust forward and hit his head on the front passenger's seat headrest, breaking his neck. P instantly was paralyzed and later diagnosed with a severe spinal injury and quadriplegia. P sued D and D moved for mandatory arbitration according to its terms of use. The court agreed with P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.