Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
109 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (2015)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Ronald Gillette and Abdul Mohamed (plaintiffs) were drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) (defendant). Uber rolled out an updated online service agreement for its drivers in such a way that when drivers logged into the Uber application, they were presented with a screen stating that their contracts had been updated. The screen contained three hyperlinks that drivers could click in order to read the contract updates. The bottom of the screen stated, “By clicking below, you acknowledge that you agree to all the contracts above.” Below that text was a button with the words “Yes, I agree.” Clicking on the button would bring up a new screen, which made drivers confirm that they had reviewed and agreed to the new contracts. Gillette and Mohamed each clicked through these screens to continue accessing the application. Gillette and Mohamed never signed a more formal agreement and never received a paper copy of the agreements. Thereafter, Uber terminated Gillette’s and Mohamed’s accounts without notice in accordance with certain provisions of the new agreements. Gillette and Mohamed sued Uber on various grounds. Gillette and Mohamed claimed that they never gave valid assent to be bound by the updated contracts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.