Yet another Hacker News

Uber arbitration award over Emily Normandin-Parker's death

72 points dataflow 1 hour ago 30 comments

enahs-sf 54 minutes ago | parent

So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.

waiwai933 43 minutes ago | parent

I don't think there's anything to suggest Uber refused to pay the arbitration award? They just stated that they disagreed with the outcome.

(Which is not to say there's not plenty to dislike about this whole case, including the fact it's forced arbitration...)

nutjob2 34 minutes ago | parent

In that case why is there a "settlement agreement" mentioned that has a $10M penalty for disparagement? Not sure what that refers to exactly but how can Uber (try to) dictate terms in the settlement?

It does seem they're trying to get out of it somehow.

asdfaoeu 21 minutes ago | parent

It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.

nutjob2 20 minutes ago | parent

Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?

waiwai933 15 minutes ago | parent

Looking at a filing by Uber (https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Techn...), and in particular Exhibit 8, the ADR award is confirmed by a settlement agreement (and if no agreement is come to, then a civil action would confirm the terms of the award).

There was a dispute about whether the amount awarded was confidential or not (Uber contended it was; plaintiff contended it wasn't), but on the face of it, had plaintiff agreed to the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, Uber would have paid up.

I suppose it could be argued that Uber were trying to write in clauses they knew plaintiff wouldn't agree to, but it's not obvious to me that a different plaintiff wouldn't have agreed to confidentiality and non-disparagement.

(FWIW, it's not clear to me whether Uber have now in fact paid up; they made a statement to the Guardian that _suggests_ they have, but the fact that they didn't explicitly say so means I wouldn't want to draw that inference)

TZubiri 10 minutes ago | parent

I mean both are right, they made a bullshit filing about something being confidential, in order to negotiate a confidentiality settlement against it.

It's minor, but they are not accepting the award as-is, they are still trying to negotiating, albeit in a minor way, not by contesting the amount, but a confidentiality clause.

They love to negotiate confidentiality clauses, there's few cases without it, including a case by Mike Rafi's personal injury firm which resulted from an omission by Uber (and later Uber being much more anal about confidentiality). I think it's a strategy to avoid case law catching on.

enahs-sf 5 minutes ago | parent

Moreso it’s them whining about losing when and trying to add a non-disparagement clause at $10m per event to the settlement for even factual information relating to the case.

Uber were the ones who forced arbitration ostensibly because it often lowers their overall legal and damages bills.

itopaloglu83 42 minutes ago | parent

Forced arbitration is creating a parallel legal system where certain companies are excluded from the consequences of their own actions. One might even say they’re becoming a protected class even.

mchusma 36 minutes ago | parent

I have been on both sides of arbitration, winning and losing. It’s much better. Basically legislation done right (for civil matters).

The only people who really win from traditional legislation are lawyers (and plaintiffs counsel who use the long expensive process to blackmail people - which is 90% of civil cases)

z3ugma 29 minutes ago | parent

Did you mean "litigation" rather than "legislation" ?

bickfordb 25 minutes ago | parent

Arbitration can be more efficient, but both parties should have an option to choose it, a direct settlement or public court. The average consumer is denied the choice by using these everyday services that have non-negotiable contracts.

PunchyHamster 20 minutes ago | parent

None of the parties should have option to choose it, it should be within govt. justice system, just have arbitration court

dataflow 16 minutes ago | parent

You seem to be missing that arbitrators have a financial incentive to side with the company, which pays them? Explained in this video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49787720

afavour 10 minutes ago | parent

Arbitration is fine. Forced arbitration is not.

TZubiri 16 minutes ago | parent

Worth noting that this is only for the civil responsibility, that is, deciding the award of damages.

The criminal charges, if any, whether to the driver or to Uber management (possibly from the sham structuring of worker categorization and corporate structure in order to reduce tax liabilities while reducing control and thus endangering consumers) are proper in state criminal courts and can never be delegated to private courts.

dataflow 51 minutes ago | parent

Video from Louis Rossmann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2B3uBQuGnU

lysace 7 minutes ago | parent

No. Just no. We don't need monetized influencers pontificating and building fandoms on this. That is gross.

oceansky 50 minutes ago | parent

Good outcome, but forced arbitration should still be illegal.

mchusma 34 minutes ago | parent

If you have been through both processes, you would more likely say the traditional civil process should be illegal.

hilariously 22 minutes ago | parent

No, you would say it needs to be reformed and funded, we have an extremely legalistic society that allows endless delaying and does not fund its core services very well.

TZubiri 7 minutes ago | parent

What's the line? If 2 brothers sign a contract, can't they decide their father will be the judge if disputes arise?

If there's a sports match, shouldn't the sports arbiter be able to decide whether some team scored a goal or not?

These are all valid civil contracts. It only affects the civil claims, never criminal, and the venue for disputing the arbitration clause (if you believe arbitration wasn't legal to begin with) are the public courts anyways, who will delegate or not to the private court.

Almost all countries recognize it and it has a quite defensible theory.

ChrisArchitect 43 minutes ago | parent

[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49761654

jacquesm 32 minutes ago | parent

All these companies are universally sleazy and refuse to take responsibility, no matter what. It's pretty much par for the course: deny you are responsible, try to control the court case in such a way that you inflict even more suffering on the victims and their families and ultimately, even if you're found to be in the wrong do everything to stall payment until each and every legal avenue to do so is exhausted.

calibas 22 minutes ago | parent

> Stone rejected Uber's argument that it is "merely a technology company" connecting riders with drivers, finding that Uber provides transportation services to the public through its app, sets prices and controls key aspects of the rider experience.

> The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that Proposition 22 -- a California ballot measure approved by voters in 2020 that allows companies to classify app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees -- prevented the company from being held liable for Tran's conduct.

The dream of every major tech company, making ridiculous profits while taking zero legal responsibility for what you create...

cmiles8 8 minutes ago | parent

So Uber took this into forced arbitration to avoid the courts and then the arbitration blew up in their face. Sorry, but there’s some strong schadenfreude there.