Uber’s Arbitration Addiction Could Be Death by 60k Cuts

Imagine if you walked out of a store having paid $10 for some merchandise, only to have the merchant come knocking at your door two weeks later saying that you need to pay another $10. One of the principle purposes of all contracts, and the law generally, is to provide finality. In the case of a settlement, there's little if any finality for the defendant if you don't agree to indemnify.

If $100 isn't enough to cover your future risk, then propose amendments (e.g. larger payment, a more explicitly circumscribed indemnity, etc) and if necessary take them to small claims court where you can recover for the immediate harm while preserving your future options.

There are general limitations on such clauses, accumulated over hundreds of years of legal evolution which bends, ever so slightly, toward fair outcomes. There's also supplementing legislative protections, typically stylized "consumer protections" when involving the hoi polloi. I wouldn't venture to say whether the indemnity clause would protect Uber if the claimant came down with an STD; it might or it might not, depending on the state, the context, and possibly even the sentiments of a jury. (In the case that it would protect Uber, consider that it's unlikely Uber who smeared the feces, so it's hardly that unfair from a moral standpoint unless there was gross negligence involved, such as the driver knowing the feces was there or Uber knowing that a driver was regularly in such incidents.)

What makes arbitration clauses problematic, as opposed to indemnification, is that the Federal Arbitration Act has been reinterpreted (beginning ~75 years after the fact) by a conservative court to foreclose state-based protections regarding fair enforcement of such clauses, and there are few if any federal-based limitations.

What's really needed is legislation that assigns direct punitive liability to drafters/pushers of contracts that continue to include outright nonsensical terms. Failing that it would be interesting if someone tried going after the practice as improperly providing incorrect legal advice - its basic goal is to mislead the opposing party into not knowing their own rights.

Why not just pay their cleaning bill and be done with it, instead of trying to deal with court and lose/ban the customer and all their future business?

I've done a credit card chargeback about 3 times in my life, and in none of those cases did I ever worry, "Gosh, if these guys ban me, I'll never be able to give them my money again!"

Also, declining the token payment leaves a lawsuit open down the line if more serious complications develop from the incident.

Even if not I suggest you show some backbone and do it anyway.

In fact, a lot of drivers use several apps like Uber, and sometime even contract privately.

Imagine the same incident happen, but suddenly the Uber app crashes. You ask for a ride again, but on Lyft, but it's the same car arriving.

Now what ? Lyft is responsible ?

It isn't an accident that arbitration clauses come with class action waivers.

Costs about $10 (not including labor, because IMO it's personally satisfying), and has roughly a one-in-three chance of them simply paying you to avoid the expense of small claims court.

Minimum wage workers make $50+ dollars a day. Even part time, most shifts are at least long enough to make $25.

And keep in mind, it's a lot of hassle to file suit or arbitration. And you need to be able to show in good faith that you tried using reasonable channels to resolve the dispute first, i.e. if you never even contacted customer support with your complaints then that's not good for you.

As an example, I recently had a Lyft to the airport that was priced up front at $80 but was billed at $120 post-arrival. Part of the problem was the airport drop-off zone was under a roof and the GPS signal probably didn't work and the ride kept running for at least 10 minutes after I'd been dropped off. It took all of two minutes to contact customer support and get refunded the extra $40. I'm not going to go to arbitration in this case which costs me two orders of magnitude more effort and has a lower chance of getting my money back, because I would've never even have notified them of the issue prior to escalating too high.