|
Calling his decision a "close call," U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff in Manhattan said the defendants had not made a "strong
showing" that their appeal would likely succeed, though they
would face irreparable harm if arbitration were wrongfully
denied.
But he said the appeals court could clarify whether Spencer
Meyer, the Connecticut plaintiff, and others like him consent to
arbitration when they buy services subject to conditions in "clickwrap"
and "browsewrap" agreements found online.
In his proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit, Meyer said Uber
and CEO Travis Kalanick violated antitrust laws by conspiring
with drivers to charge high "surge-pricing" fares during periods
of heavy demand. Uber takes a share of drivers' earnings.
On July 29, Rakoff denied Uber's request for arbitration, saying
Meyer never agreed to it and the San Francisco-based company did
not properly notify him about its policies.
Meyer opposed delaying his case while Uber appealed that ruling.
"We look forward to defending Judge Rakoff's decision and having
this matter returned to the district court," Brian Feldman, a
lawyer for Meyer, said in an email.
Uber and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The company faces several lawsuits over its pricing and its
treatment of drivers, and often tries to keep such disputes away
from courthouses.
On Aug. 18, a federal judge in San Francisco voided Uber's $100
million settlement with drivers who claimed they were employees
rather than independent contractors, and entitled to recoup
costs such as gas and vehicle maintenance. The judge said that
accord was not fair, reasonable or adequate.
The case is Meyer et al v. Kalanick et al, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 15-09796.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
|
