Wickberg v. Lyft, Inc.
356 F. Supp. 3d 179
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eric Wickberg is a Massachusetts resident who drove for Lyft and clicked an online checkbox on Jan. 28, 2017 stating “I agree to Lyft’s [Sept. 30, 2016] terms of services.”
- The linked terms included a broad arbitration clause requiring "binding and final arbitration on an individual basis" and waiving class actions.
- Wickberg later reaffirmed acceptance of a nearly identical arbitration provision (Feb. 6, 2018) and on May 3, 2018; he sent a May 20, 2018 letter attempting to "opt out" of arbitration for certain claims.
- Wickberg sued Lyft as a putative class action alleging misclassification and unpaid minimum wage/overtime; Lyft moved to compel arbitration and to stay the action.
- The court evaluated whether the arbitration agreement was validly communicated and accepted under Massachusetts contract law and FAA standards, and whether Wickberg’s opt-out attempt was effective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and covers the claims | Wickberg: the terms were not reasonably communicated (small font, low prominence, buried in sign-up) so no assent | Lyft: clickwrap acceptance (checkbox "I agree") provided reasonable notice and manifested assent | Court: Valid arbitration agreement; clickwrap was reasonably communicated and accepted |
| Whether plaintiff effectively opted out of arbitration | Wickberg: his May 20, 2018 letter opted him out | Lyft: opt-out was untimely/only applied to Feb. 2018 revisions and did not rescind the Sept. 30, 2016 agreement | Court: Opt-out ineffective as to the Sept. 30, 2016 terms; he remained bound |
| Whether the dispute falls within the arbitration clause | Wickberg: wage-and-hour/class claims should proceed in court | Lyft: claims fall within "all disputes and claims" to be arbitrated individually | Court: Claims fall within clause; doubts resolved for arbitration under FAA |
| Whether Cullinane (Uber) controls to invalidate Lyft’s screen | Wickberg: Cullinane shows similar online notices were insufficient | Lyft: Lyft’s clickwrap differs from Uber’s browsewrap and conforms to enforceable practice | Court: Distinguished Cullinane; Lyft’s clickwrap presentation was enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, 876 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (four-part test for compelling arbitration)
- Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.) (online notice requirements; invalidated Uber’s registration screen)
- Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565 (Mass. App. Ct.) (online clickwrap clauses enforceable if reasonably communicated and accepted)
- Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 284 (D. Mass.) (upholding an online arbitration/scrollwrap agreement)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (FAA favors arbitration and resolves scope doubts in favor of arbitration)
- Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530 (FAA reflects strong federal policy favoring arbitration)