Cordas v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
228 F. Supp. 3d 985
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Cordas downloaded the Uber app, created an account, and alleges he was charged cancellation fees after rides failed to materialize in NYC, Toronto, and Irvine.
- Cordas filed a putative class action asserting deceptive practices and other claims challenging Uber’s cancellation fees and practices.
- Uber moved to compel arbitration, relying on its Terms & Conditions (presented during app sign-up) which include an arbitration clause and incorporation of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules.
- Uber submitted declarations (Brauchli) and screenshots showing the sign-up flow required users to click “DONE” on a screen stating “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.”
- Cordas submitted a declaration denying he saw the notice and raised evidentiary objections to Uber’s declarations; the court found Cordas’s evidence conclusory and Brauchli’s declarations admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cordas agreed to Uber’s Terms | Cordas says he never received notice of the Terms and thus never assented | Uber says the sign-up flow required clicking “DONE” after a notice linking the Terms, showing affirmative assent | Court found no genuine dispute of material fact; Cordas assented and is bound by the Terms |
| Whether the Terms are an unenforceable browsewrap | Cordas contends the Terms are passive and thus not binding | Uber contends sign-up required an affirmative click and is more like a click‑wrap | Court held the sign-up was affirmative (not mere browsewrap) and formed a contract |
| Who decides arbitrability (court or arbitrator) | Cordas contends the court should decide arbitrability | Uber points to incorporation of AAA Commercial Rules, arguing delegation to arbitrator | Court held incorporation of AAA rules clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability to an arbitrator |
| Whether arbitration should be compelled and case stayed | Cordas argued against arbitration generally and attacked enforceability | Uber sought enforcement of arbitration clause and stay of litigation | Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (FAA governs arbitration agreements in transactions involving commerce)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1985) (district courts must direct parties to arbitrate issues covered by a valid arbitration agreement)
- Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (no arbitration order absent express, unequivocal agreement)
- Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes browsewrap vs clickwrap; notice and assent required for browsewrap enforceability)
- Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (incorporation of AAA rules can clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to arbitrator)
- Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013) (presumption that courts decide arbitrability absent clear delegation)
- Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2010) (parties may delegate gateway arbitrability questions to the arbitrator)