A New Jersey Couple Sued After an Uber Accident. Why Did an In-App Agreement Send Their Claims Against Uber to Arbitration?

The checkbox that mattered

Georgia opened her Uber account in June 2015. Uber updated its terms on January 18, 2021, and showed her a blocking screen on April 1, 2021. The screen had a checkbox and a Confirm button. She does not dispute that she agreed to those January terms, including a sentence that waived a jury trial.

Uber revised the terms again on December 16, 2021. On January 8, 2022, a pop-up blocked further use of the account until the user accepted. It linked to the new terms and the privacy notice. It asked the user to check a box and press Confirm, and it said the user was at least 18. A screen that requires a click to accept terms is often called a clickwrap agreement.

The December terms required individual, binding arbitration for disputes arising from use of Uber’s services, including personal-injury claims. They named the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. They made exceptions for certain small claims, sexual-assault or harassment claims, and intellectual-property claims. They also said an arbitrator, not a court, decides disputes about the agreement itself, and they extended the clause to some claims by or against third parties, including spouses.

Uber’s records showed the box checked and the button pressed from Georgia’s password-protected account. The McGintys said their daughter had permission to use Georgia’s phone and accepted the terms, including the age statement, while placing an Uber Eats order. The court described both accounts. It treated the December terms as accepted by Georgia or through her daughter.

What the court decided

The trial judge thought the December terms did not make clear that the McGintys were giving up a lawsuit in court. The judge relied on Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), and noted that the January version expressly mentioned a jury trial.

The appeals court read the agreement again. It held that the December terms told the user the claims against Uber would go to binding arbitration and not to a court. The judges said Atalese does not require specific jury-trial words. Because the December agreement was enforceable, the court did not decide whether the January version could still apply as a fallback.

The McGintys also argued that Uber and Raiser, its subsidiary, had waited too long to ask for arbitration. The court said the companies raised arbitration in their defense and filed the motion after the McGintys refused to pause the lawsuit. The parties had exchanged limited discovery. There was no arbitration date and no trial date. The court found no waiver.

The court sent the case back with instructions to compel arbitration of the claims against Uber and Raiser. It told the trial court to pause the claims against Jerinson M. Peralta and Brachy Felizdelapaz until the arbitration ended. The record did not show that either of them was bound by Uber’s agreement. Judges Gilson, Firko, and Bishop-Thompson issued the ruling together. The court did not retain jurisdiction.

What the court left to the arbitrator

The court did not decide two contract questions. It assigned both to the arbitrator.

The first is Georgia’s argument that she can avoid the agreement because her daughter was a minor. The court called that an infancy defense and said the arbitrator decides it.

The second is whether John is bound as a third-party beneficiary. The ride was ordered through Georgia’s account. The December terms speak to spouses and other third parties. The court did not decide that John was bound. It held that the arbitrator decides that question under the agreement’s delegation clause.

Timeline

• June 2015: Georgia signs up for an Uber account.
• January 18, 2021: Uber modifies its terms. On April 1, 2021, those terms appear in the app. Georgia does not dispute that she agreed, including a jury-trial waiver.
• December 16, 2021: Uber revises the terms again. On January 8, 2022, a blocking pop-up presents them. Uber’s records attribute the Confirm click to Georgia’s logged-in account. The plaintiffs say their minor daughter made the click.
• March 31, 2022: The McGintys are rear-seat passengers in a car driven by Uber driver Jia Wen Zheng. At State Highway 130 South and State Highway 522, Zheng runs a red light and hits a car driven by Jerinson M. Medrano Peralta and owned by Brachy Felizdelapaz. The court recites that the plaintiffs suffered serious physical, psychological, and financial harm.
• February 23, 2023: The plaintiffs file in the Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1085-23.
• July 2023: Uber’s counsel asks the plaintiffs to pause the case for arbitration. They refuse. Uber and Raiser then move to compel arbitration.
• November 22, 2023: The Law Division denies the motion, relying on Atalese.
• September 20, 2024: The Appellate Division holds the arbitration provision valid and enforceable, reverses as to Uber and Raiser, and stays the claims against Peralta and Felizdelapaz until arbitration ends. The opinion is unpublished. The court does not retain jurisdiction.

Sources

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, McGinty v. Zheng, Docket No. A-1368-23, unpublished per curiam opinion, argued September 10, 2024, decided September 20, 2024. Judges Gilson, Firko, and Bishop-Thompson. Appeal from the Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1085-23. The opinion states that it is not precedent and that its use in other cases is limited. New Jersey Rule 1:36-3. Justia copy of the unpublished opinion (PDF).

RideClaim.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.