The SJC also ruled that Uber had not obtained reasonable agreement from complaining users on its terms and conditions and referred to a disparity between the driver registration process and the user registration process, which also weighed on the lack of proper termination. Unlike users, drivers were required to check the terms and conditions by clicking on a hyperlink and agreeing to these conditions by clicking “YES, me AGREE”. The SJC found that this form of consent, common in click-wrap agreements, was often applied and that Uber was at that time easily accessible and in fact used. Rich May, P.C., a law firm founded in 1937, based in the heart of Boston`s financial district, focuses on the affairs of society, finance, civil litigation, energy, real estate, entertainment and wealth planning. The company`s clients include a large group of companies in New England and across the country. Rich May offers the breadth and depth of expertise typically associated with large national companies, while maintaining the fast and personalized service found in small regional businesses. Rich May`s clients have direct access to experienced lawyers familiar with the client and the field of investigation, who can offer timely and practical legal solutions. Uber reports a record month for vaccine rides Anyone doing business in Massachusetts who relies on online contracts should consider the facts of this case and ensure that their online contracts provide appropriate communication of the terms and conditions and obtain the appropriate agreement of the counterparty. Ideally, companies should structure their online contracts so that users are required to interact with or verify business conditions, and offer a positive manifestation of assets. Rich May`s Business, Corporate and Securities practice group is right with you if you are concerned about the applicability of your contracts or if you have other questions about online contract design. The union has another pioneering case due to a right to workers` compensation following the death of a delivery driver last year. In applying this test to Uber`s terms and conditions, the SJC found that the complainant users had not been informed of the conditions because they had not verified Uber`s terms and conditions and registration process did not require interaction with the preconditions for approving these conditions, which is common in many online contracts.
In the absence of this effective notification, the SJC found that due to the specific facts relating to Uber`s terms and conditions (i.e. the nature of the small-scale and short-term transaction, the lack of clarity and simplicity of disclosure of the terms, and the broad scope and scope of the terms and conditions) , no appropriate communication was provided to the complaining users.