of use

The appellate court said federal law trumps Uber’s terms of use agreement, which U.S.

“Most people don’t even read those terms of use,” said Lindsay Nako, executive director of Impact Fund, a social justice litigation group — yet the click-to-agree contracts tightly control what happens if they’re injured.

Uber did not respond to requests for comment, but in its appeal to the 9th Circuit, the platform’s attorneys argued a “non-consolidation clause” in its terms of use was actually better for plaintiffs because it ensured each case would be heard on its own merits rather than in one clearinghouse proceeding.

“The terms of use allow plaintiffs to have their day in court,” Uber’s lawyers wrote.

But Nako and others tracking the case said if Uber could easily unwind cases the government binds together, other big companies would write identical provisions into their own terms of use, tangling federal civil courts in endless duplicative lawsuits — making it much harder for victims to collect damages.