Stephan Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 971 F.3d 1088

Plaintiffs Stephen Namisnak and Francis Falls are wheelchair users who live in New Orleans and allege they cannot use Uber because Uber does not offer its wheelchair-accessible option (uberWAV) in New Orleans.
Because uberWAV is unavailable locally, neither plaintiff downloaded the Uber App or agreed to Uber’s Terms and Conditions (which contain an arbitration clause).
Plaintiffs sued Uber under the ADA seeking an injunction requiring Uber to provide uberWAV in New Orleans.
Uber moved to compel arbitration; the district court compelled arbitration for a co-plaintiff who had signed the Terms, but denied arbitration for Namisnak and Falls, finding they had not agreed and were not equitably estopped.
Uber appealed, arguing (1) the two plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they never used the App and (2) they should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Injury-in-fact (standing) — deterrent doctrine	Plaintiffs are deterred from using Uber because uberWAV is not offered in New Orleans; downloading the App would be a futile gesture.	Plaintiffs never downloaded the App or agreed to terms, so they have no concrete injury from Uber’s services.	Plaintiffs plausibly alleged injury-in-fact under the deterrent-effect doctrine; they need not attempt the futile gesture of downloading the App.
Causation & redressability	Uber’s omission (not offering uberWAV) causes the injury; an injunction requiring Uber to offer uberWAV would redress it.	Any relief would be speculative because drivers might choose not to operate wheelchair-accessible vehicles even if Uber offered the option.	Causation and redressability satisfied: Uber alone can make the option available, and an injunction could require Uber to provide access.
Equitable estoppel to compel arbitration	Plaintiffs never assented to the Terms and do not rely on them; their ADA claim stands without referencing the contract.	Plaintiffs’ standing theory depends on comparing to app users, so they should be estopped from denying the arbitration clause.	Equitable estoppel does not apply under California law because the ADA claims are viable without reference to Uber’s Terms and Conditions; arbitration not compelled.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for factual allegations).
Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (futility exception to requiring a plaintiff to undertake a futile gesture).
Civil Rights Educ. & Enforcement Ctr. v. Hospitality Props. Tr., 867 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2017) (deterrent-effect doctrine in ADA cases).
Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff need not attempt futile access to show injury).
Access Living v. Uber Techs., Inc., 958 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2020) (distinguishable: uberWAV was available in that city).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (causation and redressability principles for standing).
E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (nonsignatories cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent contract-based reasons).
In re Henson, 869 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2017) (equitable estoppel in arbitration context under California law).