Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
What’s at Stake
This case tests what counts as “acceptance” of a company’s terms of service, and whether a person can be bound to terms someone else accepted. In this case, our client was seriously and permanently injured in a crash while riding in an Uber that his wife ordered in her app. Uber is now attempting to force the injured man out of court and into arbitration by enforcing its Terms of Use against him, even though he never saw or accepted the terms, simply on the basis that his wife has an Uber account.
Summary
In March 2021, Cheryl Walker called an Uber for her husband, Carroll Walker, using a feature that allows customers to order rides for other people. While Cheryl had an Uber account and had accepted Uber’s terms of use — which contain an arbitration agreement — Caroll did not have an account. Once Cheryl ordered the ride, a text message was sent to Carroll’s phone providing information about his ride and a link to the Uber Terms of Use. The message said that by taking the Uber, Carroll was agreeing to Uber’s terms. Carroll testified he did not see or open the text message before the ride began, and he did not generally use or read text messages. The Walkers allege that during the ride, the Uber app distracted the driver with notifications and that the Uber navigation app appeared to instruct the driver to turn the wrong way on a one-way street and drive illegally into oncoming traffic. The result was a head-on collision. Carroll was catastrophically and permanently injured in the crash.
Core Legal Problem
After the crash, Cheryl sued Uber in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, both on her own behalf and as power of attorney for Carroll. Uber moved to compel arbitration of all the claims. Regarding the claims on behalf of Carroll, Uber argued they must be arbitrated because he had “agreed” to arbitration by taking the Uber after he was sent the text. Alternatively, Uber argued that it could enforce the arbitration agreement against Carroll anyway because he was a third-party beneficiary of the terms Cheryl had accepted.
The district court denied Uber’s motion as to the claims on behalf of Carroll, rejecting both arguments. It held that no agreement was formed between Uber and Carroll, and that D.C. law did not permit Uber to enforce its agreement with Cheryl against Carroll under a third-party beneficiary theory. The court did grant Uber’s motion as to Cheryl’s own claims, holding that an agreement was formed between Cheryl and Uber. Uber moved for reconsideration, and the court denied that motion. Uber then appealed to the D.C. Circuit. We filed a brief for Plaintiff-Appellee Cheryl on August 25, 2025.