Cullinane et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 1:14-cv-14750

Plaintiffs are Massachusetts Uber app users who allege Uber charged hidden/inflated airport and East Boston tolls and seek class relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and unjust enrichment.
Each plaintiff created an Uber account via the smartphone app between 2012–2014; the final sign-up screen said, “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy,” with a button linking to the full Terms.
The Terms include a binding arbitration clause (AAA rules, consumer procedures) and an explicit class-action waiver; Uber’s Terms state it will pay arbitration fees for claims under $75,000.
Plaintiffs contend they lacked notice/assent to the arbitration clause (characterizing the Terms as a browsewrap); Uber argues the sign-up presented reasonable notice and manifested assent (a sign‑in‑wrap/clickwrap hybrid).
The district court found the sign-up provided reasonable notice and manifested assent, concluded the arbitration provision was valid and not illusory, compelled arbitration, and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a binding agreement to arbitrate?	Plaintiffs: no reasonable notice or assent to Terms; so no contract formation.	Uber: sign-up screen gave conspicuous notice and clicking “Done” manifested assent.	Court: sign-up provided reasonable notice and manifestation of assent; contract formed.
Is the arbitration clause enforceable (scope/gateway)?	Plaintiffs: clause should not be enforced; gateway issues for court to decide.	Uber: clause broadly covers disputes and incorporates AAA rules delegating arbitrability to arbitrator.	Court: parties agreed to arbitrate and incorporated AAA rules; arbitrator decides gateway issues.
Is arbitration an illusory or unavailable remedy (costs/class waiver)?	Plaintiffs: single‑file arbitration and costs effectively bar relief; class waiver renders remedy illusory.	Uber: will pay arbitration fees for claims under $75,000; Supreme Court allows class waivers even if individual arbitration is costly.	Court: arbitration is not illusory; fee-shifting and Supreme Court precedent permit enforcement despite class waiver.
Stay vs dismissal after compelling arbitration	Plaintiffs: (implicitly) seek continued court proceedings.	Uber: case should be compelled and dismissed or stayed.	Court: all issues reserved for arbitrator; dismissed the case (rather than stayed).

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (arbitration is a matter of contract; courts enforce arbitration agreements as written)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (FAA preempts state rules that interfere with arbitration agreements; class-action waivers enforceable)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (doubts about arbitrability are resolved in favor of arbitration)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (federal substantive law of arbitrability governs interpretation of arbitration agreements)
Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 554 F.3d 7 (1st Cir.) (incorporation of AAA rules can delegate arbitrability and validity issues to arbitrator; court should refuse arbitration only if remedy is illusory)
Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.) (enforceability of online terms requires reasonably conspicuous notice and manifestation of assent)
Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes browsewrap and clickwrap; clicking assent makes terms enforceable)