Thread

Uber arbitration award over Emily Normandin-Parker’s death

159 points · 192 comments · dataflow

enahs-sf · 1790000581 · focus · HN ↗
So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.
1. waiwai933 · 1790001267 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think there's anything to suggest Uber refused to pay the arbitration award? They just stated that they disagreed with the outcome.
  (Which is not to say there's not plenty to dislike about this whole case, including the fact it's forced arbitration...)
  1. nutjob2 · 1790001825 · focus · HN ↗
    In that case why is there a "settlement agreement" mentioned that has a $10M penalty for disparagement? Not sure what that refers to exactly but how can Uber (try to) dictate terms in the settlement?
    It does seem they're trying to get out of it somehow.
    asdfaoeu · 1790002556 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds like they didn't agree to that but anyone can propose a settlement.
    nutjob2 · 1790002634 · focus · HN ↗
    Really? Isn't the arbitration binding and therefore the end of the matter?
    waiwai933 · 1790002911 · focus · HN ↗
    Looking at a filing by Uber (<a href="https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Technologies-Motion-for-Protective-Order.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.panish.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Uber-Techn...), and in particular Exhibit 8, the ADR award is confirmed by a settlement agreement (and if no agreement is come to, then a civil action would confirm the terms of the award).
    There was a dispute about whether the amount awarded was confidential or not (Uber contended it was; plaintiff contended it wasn't), but on the face of it, had plaintiff agreed to the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, Uber would have paid up.
    I suppose it could be argued that Uber were trying to write in clauses they knew plaintiff wouldn't agree to, but it's not obvious to me that a different plaintiff wouldn't have agreed to confidentiality and non-disparagement.
    (FWIW, it's not clear to me whether Uber have now in fact paid up; they made a statement to the Guardian that _suggests_ they have, but the fact that they didn't explicitly say so means I wouldn't want to draw that inference)
    TZubiri · 1790003248 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean both are right, they made a bullshit filing about something being confidential, in order to negotiate a confidentiality settlement against it.
    It's minor, but they are not accepting the award as-is, they are still trying to negotiating, albeit in a minor way, not by contesting the amount, but a confidentiality clause.
    They love to negotiate confidentiality clauses, there's few cases without it, including a case by Mike Rafi's personal injury firm which resulted from an omission by Uber (and later Uber being much more anal about confidentiality). I think it's a strategy to avoid case law catching on.
    onlypassingthru · 1790006788 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a strategy to prevent other arbitrators from recognizing what a death is worth. Now everybody can google the case and adjust payouts accordingly.
    [deleted] · 1790004970 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. enahs-sf · 1790003554 · focus · HN ↗
    Moreso it’s them whining about losing when and trying to add a non-disparagement clause at $10m per event to the settlement for even factual information relating to the case.
    Uber were the ones who forced arbitration ostensibly because it often lowers their overall legal and damages bills.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.