Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.; Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Case Updates

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court “improperly assumed the authority to decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreements were enforceable” and that all claims except the California Private Attorney General Act claims have to go to arbitration for the arbitrator to decide the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged reversal of a district court decision that declined to enforce a company’s arbitration agreement. The district court found that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable on various grounds notwithstanding a clear opt-out provision.

In its brief, the Chamber explained that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable given the use of an opt-out provision and that provisions allocating the costs of arbitration, requiring confidentiality, allowing a judicial forum for IP claims, and allowing a change in terms were not substantively unconscionable. More broadly, the brief argued that the district court’s analysis was premised on a policy view disfavoring arbitration agreements that is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

Andrew J. Pincus, Evan M. Tager, Archis A. Parasharami, and Kevin S. Ranlett of Mayer Brown LLP served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.