Chilutti v. Uber
What’s at Stake
Under Pennsylvania law, contracts waiving the right to a jury trial are only effective if the person waiving the right has full knowledge and understanding of the terms of the contract. The primary question before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is whether Uber’s arbitration agreement can be enforced against Shannon and Keith Chilutti, who sued Uber after Shannon was seriously injured while riding in an Uber. The state intermediate appellate court held that there was no enforceable contract because the Chiluttis never viewed Uber’s hyperlinked terms containing the arbitration agreement when they registered with Uber. Uber then sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Summary
In 2019, Shannon and Keith Chilutti used the Uber app to order a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) to take them home from a medical appointment. Shannon is a wheelchair user, and when the Uber-ordered WAV arrived, the driver secured her wheelchair in the WAV with tie-downs. Shannon remained in her wheelchair and requested a seat belt, but the driver failed to provide one. During the ride, the driver—who was distracted by use of his cell phone—made an aggressive turn, causing Shannon to fly out of her wheelchair. She struck her head and lost consciousness, fractured her toe, and injured her neck and spine. She required substantial medical care and suffered permanent injuries.
Core Legal Problem
The Chiluttis brought a personal-injury suit against Uber, Pennsylvania- and Philadelphia-based subsidiaries of Uber, the company that owned the WAV, and the driver in Pennsylvania state court. Uber and its subsidiaries (collectively, Uber) petitioned to compel arbitration of the Chiluttis’ claims based on the arbitration provision in Uber’s terms. The trial court compelled arbitration, and the Chiluttis appealed.
The en banc appellate court first held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the superior court’s decision compelling arbitration. Next, it held that there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate because the Chiluttis never viewed Uber’s hyperlinked terms containing the arbitration agreement when they registered with Uber. The case is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard on September 9, 2025.