美國上訴法院改判Uber價格壟斷案由仲裁管轄

[導讀：2017年8月17日，美國聯邦第二巡迴上訴法院判決Uber價格壟斷案應由仲裁管轄。本案由一名消費者提起，狀告Uber及其前任CEO Kalanick涉嫌與司機串通固定價格，在用車高峰時段收取高額打車費。2016年7月，一審法官認為本案不應由仲裁管轄，因為Uber沒有適當提示消費者注意仲裁條款。上訴法院則認為，縱使Uber的仲裁條款作為格式條款之一出現在冗長而眾多的服務協議中，消費者仍能夠在智能手機上閱讀服務條款，但是許多消費者選擇不去撥冗閱讀這些條款。（本文源自路透社網站。導讀系本公眾號原創，轉載請註明文字出自本公眾號。）]

Uber Technologies Inc. on Thursday won a victory in its effort to keep unhappy customers from suing in court, persuading a federal appeals court to send a Connecticut passenger's price-fixing case against the ride-service company into arbitration.

Overturning a lower court ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Uber and former Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick properly notified customers in online user agreements that disputes should be arbitrated.

In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court also said the passenger, Spencer Meyer, agreed to arbitrate his own claims, but could try to show Uber waived its right to arbitration by actively fighting him in court.

Brian Feldman, a lawyer for Meyer, in a statement said Uber did waive that right, and "we look forward to pressing ahead with the litigation."

Uber and its outside lawyer welcomed the decision.

"The Second Circuit's powerful and common sense opinion will serve to protect online contracting and strengthen commerce nationwide," the lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, said in a statement. "We are thrilled with the decision."

Thursday's closely watched decision was a boost for efforts to enforce arbitration requirements, which are often buried in long lists of terms and conditions that customers never see.

Internet companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that a loss by Uber could inhibit growth in mobile commerce and call into question the enforceability of online contracts.

The decision also offered a lift to San Francisco-based Uber, which has been besieged by high-profile problems.

Kalanick resigned as CEO in June after a shareholder revolt, and is the target of a lawsuit by Uber investor Benchmark Capital to force him off the company's board.

Uber also faces sexual harassment and bias accusations by female staff, a federal inquiry into software that helps drivers avoid police, and a trade secrets lawsuit by Google parent Alphabet Inc's self-driving car unit Waymo.

'SURGE PRICING'

Meyer accused Uber and Kalanick of conspiring with drivers, whose earnings are shared with Uber, to charge "surge pricing" fares during peak demand periods.

He claimed he never saw a hyperlink to Uber's arbitration requirement when he used his smartphone to sign up.

Internet users often agree to such terms and conditions through"clickwrap" agreements by checking an "I agree" box, or"browsewrap" agreements where terms are posted via hyperlinks.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan denied Uber's request for arbitration in July 2016, saying the company never properly alerted Meyer to its policies.

In overturning that ruling, Circuit Judge Denny Chin said typical smartphone users would find the disclosures "reasonably conspicuous,"even on smaller screens common to mobile devices, and Meyer was not excused for not following the hyperlink.

"While it may be the case that many users will not bother reading the additional terms, that is the choice the user makes," Chin wrote.

Rakoff will decide whether Uber waived its right to arbitrate with Meyer.

On Sept. 20, a federal appeals court in San Francisco will hear arguments on whether some Uber drivers can recoup expenses and tips in a class actionbecause they are employees, or must arbitrate their claims.

The case is Meyer v. Uber Technologies Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-2750.

我們致力於提供反壟斷法最新資訊，包括法規速遞、執法機關動態、行政執法、民事訴訟、中外反壟斷法交流、學術研究等。提供案例解析、理論介紹、律師實務操作指南，以及原創反壟斷法評論和文章，部分內容為中英文雙語。歡迎您的關注。