I'd say that's a very rational anger. Lean into it. :)

Aren’t there cases (like Erin Brockovich) that have been able to challenge the status quo?

John, it is rational anger not irrational, though not a lot of the general public get a background sufficient to express it appropriately, and there's been an ongoing trend of gaslighters claiming rational reasoning is indicative of psychotic ideation, autism, or mental illness, as a deceitful discrediting and nullification technique to curb any communications/discussion on topics.

Some may argue and contest what I'm about to say, but it is well established, primarily under Social Contract Theory (Locke/Rousseau/Kant).

A "rule of law's" primary purpose and function is in allowing non-violent conflict resolution between parties and people that are equal under the law.

Whenever the "rule of law" fails, it becomes a "rule by law", and it allows no recourse, coercing unequally under the law, either fully, or through byzantine/kafka processes; the social contract then fails, and these intolerable acts grow with increasing suffering until society falls back to a natural rule, which primarily includes violence (there is no other alternative when these events occur).

Your anger is a righteous rational anger because these things are well known in legal circles and by historians (its required curricula under political science and philosophy/law eduction iirc, and the outcomes are reasonably well documented in the historical context during several different revolutionary wars).

When you see these things happen, with these type of coercive actions within the courts, it is destructive and erodes the "rule of law" and undermines credibility of institutions, until it becomes a "rule by law", which as I mentioned has severe consequences.

The more widespread, the greater the severity of injustices and outcome. Incidentally, this is also largely why adoption of forced arbitration type clauses had so many respected professionals against it, not being swayed by the false reasoning of reducing costs because it opened up many avenues for corruption and denying/limiting rights to the courts, which are already limited by representation costs (annual median salary for the population is needed upfront to start a cause of action in many cases, few have this this since they spend it on food) and other things.

There are many components of a "rule of law" depending on who you talk to, but broadly speaking it must have 5 things: Independent Judiciary, Equality Under the Law, Laws that are Transparent and Just, and finally Accessible.

Arbitration fails these in several ways. Even the existing court system fails these, but that wasn't always the case, corruption and ruin have made these systems brittle.

Repeating the same mistakes from history is worthy of anger, and this is a rational anger because of the documented consequences.

In the EU such clauses are voidable under the Unfair contract terms directive. Basically any contract term that creates a high imbalance between the rights and obligations favoring the business in the face of the customer is considered to be unfair. The directive gives non-exhaustive examples which, apropos, includes:

> excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

Meanwhile, the EU provides arbitration services and suggests in most legislation that users take advantage of it instead of always going to court, but obviously forcing people into arbitration instead of courts produces bad incentives. In the US, it seems to incentivize arbitration to favor the people bringing the business. In the EU, you should mostly just favor it for the speed.

A lot of contract terms are signing away rights. Like if you give up an easement, you’re signing away your right to use that property. So immediately there’s a question of “which rights can you sign away?”.

I think rights the general population looks like a good reference. The general population doesn’t have a right to use that property.

There’s a real problem that so many companies are requiring customers sign away rights, like arbitration clauses where you sign away a right to a trial. Normal market forces aren’t working here. Lots of companies that do this have restricted competition because of government regulation (phone companies). Also, any time the cost is rare but high (most people won’t sue their phone company) the cost is undervalued by consumers. Throw in some monopoly power and you end up in a situation where consumers can’t get essential services without signing away rights, which means those rights don’t really exist.

> there should be some sort of framework of what is acceptable to contest as a user

There broadly is. A 1925 law puts arbitration in a special bucket [1]. There appears to be bipartisan interest in reform [2].

Put another way, absent the FAA, this language would have likely been struck down.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act#Propos...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_R...

> In France we have this concept, in most cases, that a contract cannot force somebody to accept a lower amount of rights than the general population

Washington state has something similar in landlord tenant law for renters - there are several livability/QOL/basic needs (and a few others that fall less into these categories but that have been habitually abused) that "cannot be waived" in a rental agreement, even with specific consideration. (i.e. even if I offer you $100/month less on your rent to sign the waivers, you still cannot - well, you can sign, but you still have those rights).

All companies could just use one Acme among them!

The insurance exists mainly to discourage customers from making an informal deal with the driver so Uber loses its cut.

I grabbed it off njcourts.gov and uploaded here: https://files.catbox.moe/soj1zo.pdf

> Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile

Not really. Forced pre-dispute arbitration between persons of different legal sophistication is.

Pre-dispute arbitration per se is perfeclty fine in most commercial settings. In many cases, it prevents the party with more money running out the clock on the other's legal resources.

The cynical answer: they sue uber because uber has money and the driver has approximately none. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.

The less cynical answer: they have a business relationship with Uber. They looked at Uber’s logo as they were ordering. Uber took their money. Uber is who appears in their bank statement. They had no control over which driver drives them, Uber did. They had no information about the driver except what little Uber provided them with. If not for Uber they would have never been able to connect with the driver. Uber’s reputation is why they trusted the driver.

> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end.

Sounds like very good reasons why Uber is liable then?

> How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?

It also sounds like your very own comment answers this question. By vetting the drivers. By checking the cars. By not looking the other way when accounts are rented illicitly, and so on and so on.

Maybe the sort of liability you tout on your own website telling your customers how safe you keep them and how much everything is insured????

https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#

“ There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.”

> Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers.

This is an illusion they have been keen to promote in many places, but one which has been shattered in various courts. Drivers are considered workers or even employees in some countries[1].

> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?

Indeed, and this is a major problem, companies should not be able to run with such poor practices and such little accountability.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/uber-driv...

> Since all that Uber does is write an app

They not only wrote the app, but they host the service and charge the end customer - you aren't paying the driver, you pay uber, who clip the ticket and then pay the remainder on (less taxes) to the driver.

Because that's not how product liability works, like at all.

You can, as you say, blame the driver. It's not clear from my reading the article who is at fault here for the accident. But there's a broader liability issue: does Uber engage in practices that make such an accident more likely? Do they do so knowing this?

Example: imagine Uber lets a driver continually take rides for 30 hours straight. At some point the driver is fatigued and is more likely to crash. This is a foreseeable issue so, if it were true (and I'm not saying it is; this is just an example), Uber could still be liable.

The Uber ToS of course seek to limit liability by forfeiting rights and submitting to binding arbitration. This state court has upheld the enforceability of the Uber ToS. That's not binding on any other state so this has a long way to go before becoming a useful legal precedent.

> Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves

Is there an allegation of negligence on Uber's part? For example, did the driver have a history of accidents? If so, I could see liability extending to them.

You answered the question.

> I honestly don't understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber's camp.

> Uber ... do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber.

If I am in a vehicle accident and hit by a commercial vehicle (and in fact I have been, though not an Uber, vehicle totaled and I was injured), the insurance policy is held by the employer, and generally I would also sue the employer, not the individual driver (and if I did, I would expect that the employer or their insurer would come between us).

The whole "pretending they don't work for Uber" is a free pass to all sorts of shenanigans. You're right, "how could they be possibly be aware?" - but that's the point, they're doing these things to try not to be aware, for exactly these reasons (as well as the employment benefits and local regulation crap).

If a restaurant serves me expired food I don’t blame the chef, I blame the restaurant.

Many governments do not agree with that kind of tech feudalism technics and in many juridictions, Uber, as well as similar apps (like delivery apps) making use of legal loopholes to pretend they are just a platform are forced to be considered as employer because that is what they are really.

I kind of prefer that the entity that sells a consumer something is responsible for the good or service. If I book an Uber, I buy the service from Uber. If I order something from Amazon, I buy it from Amazon. There may be subcontractors and other internal bureaucratic details, but they should not concern me. If I do business with a company, it should not matter whether the service is ultimately provided by their employee, a freelancer, or another company. If something goes wrong, the company I dealt with should be liable. They may have internal processes for assigning the ultimate liability, but those should not concern me.

If this were the case, corporations would have no liability whatsoever, as they could always say “it was the employee acting independently.” They would then structure companies to be comprised entirely of contractors, not employees, to further emphasize this supposed division. (They’re already doing this last part, but more so they don’t have to provide benefits.)

The second paragraph of your post seems to imply negligence on the end of Uber if they're not vetting properly.

Uber also insures the rides, by law.

So they are liable to some extent.

As valid as your argument might be, it's different from the argument given for rejecting this case.

This is about the terms of use.