When signing up for Uber, do you waive your right to a trial? Pa.’s Supreme Court will decide.
Shannon Chilutti sued Uber after a 2019 car mishap. In the years since, she’s been fighting the company’s terms of service clause that mandates arbitration.
Shannon Chilutti took an Uber home with her husband from a doctor’s appointment in March 2019. The Philadelphia resident uses a wheelchair, and sat in the back of an accessible Ford van for the ride.
Chilutti wasn’t strapped with a seat belt, and when the Uber driver took an abrupt left turn, she fell out of her chair and lost consciousness, according to a lawsuit she filed against Uber in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2020.
Uber objected to the lawsuit, citing a clause in the app’s terms of service in which users waive their right to a jury trial in favor of binding arbitration. In 2021, a judge ordered the case to pause while arbitration was underway.
Chilutti appealed the order. In the years since, the case has been making its way through courts, and on Tuesday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the rideshare company was required to explicitly notify its users that by creating an account they waived their constitutional right to a jury trial.
Now the state’s highest court is tasked with applying contract law, written with paper and inked signatures in mind, to the digital era — as business and legal advocacy groups are closely watching for the outcome.
What is Uber’s arbitration clause?
When Chilutti and her husband created their Uber accounts, they encountered a line that said that by clicking they agreed to Uber’s terms and conditions and privacy policy.
Uber’s Term of Use is a multipage document that includes language in which users agree that “any dispute, claim or controversy” arising between them and the company “will be settled by binding individual arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law.”
What is Chilutti’s lawsuit against Uber arguing?
The right for a jury trial is granted by both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions, and Uber did not do enough to ensure that users understood that they were waiving a constitutional right when signing up for the app, the lawsuit contends.
Chilutti said in a deposition that she didn’t notice the hyperlinks, or review the policies, when she created her account.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Joseph Messa, a Messa & Associates attorney representing Chilutti, said Uber’s policies were “hidden” and attempting to read them in full amounts to a “scavenger hunt.”
Uber’s attorney, Michael Kichline of Morgan Lewis, attacked the appeal processes on procedural grounds, and told the justices the terms were available for anyone to review.
“If you don’t read the contract, that’s your prerogative,” Kichline said.
What have courts said so far?
In a 5-3 decision, a panel of Superior Court judges agreed with Chilutti, finding that the right to a jury trial can’t be “clicked away” without legal protection.
The 2023 opinion required Uber to explicitly state on the registration page that the user was waiving the right, and that the waiver should appear in bold, capital letters at the top of the first page of the terms of service.
How did the Supreme Court justices respond to the arguments?
Justices Kevin Brobson and David Wecht seemed skeptical that the court should dictate how companies should present their terms of service.
Wecht said the argument that users are unable to understand that they are agreeing terms of service amounts to “infantilizing people.”
Other justices peppered both attorneys with questions, with Justice Kevin Dougherty asking Uber’s attorney what would be the harm in a more explicit notice in the sign-up process.
What happens next?
The justices will issue an opinion on the case in the coming months.