Whether the courts below properly determined that an agreement to arbitrate existed between plaintiff and Uber; whether the ethical rule prohibiting an attorney from contacted a represented party prevents a corporation from including an agreement to arbitrate a pending lawsuit in its terms of service in its software application; whether it was reasonable for plaintiff to expect that assenting to an update to the application’s terms of use would affect her pending lawsuit in which she was represented by counsel; whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts New York’s law on arbitration clauses; whether the purported agreement was unconscionable; whether Uber may rely on its prior 2016 terms of service.
Appellant’s Brief (n/a)
Respondent’s Brief
Reply Brief
Amicus – Public Justice
Amicus Response – Respondent (n/a)
Amicus – Chamber of Commerce (n/a)
Amicus Response – Appellant
Respondent’s Brief
Reply Brief
Amicus – Public Justice
Amicus Response – Respondent (n/a)
Amicus – Chamber of Commerce (n/a)
Amicus Response – Appellant
n/a