Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kauders v. Uber Technologies Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
486 Mass. 557, 159 N.E.3d 1033 (2021)
Nowadays, virtually any online transaction can result in a consumer being party to extensive contract terms the consumer was only vaguely aware of. Cauters versus Uber Technologies concerned the enforceability of one such agreement.
Christopher Kauders was blind and used a guide dog. In order to use Uber Technologies transportation service, Kauders registered with Uber via the company's app on his mobile phone.
The registration process involved three separate screens.
Each screen had a dark background with the screen's title in capital letters in a gray bar at the top. The first screen was titled create an account. It required Kauders to enter his email address, cell phone number, and a password.
Entering the information enabled a button in the top right corner of the screen labeled next.
Clicking this button brought up the next screen. The second screen was titled create a profile.
This screen required Kauders to enter his first and last name with an option to enter a photograph.
Clicking next again brought Kauders to the third screen titled link payment.
This screen offered a choice of entering credit card information or linking to a PayPal account.
Completing this information, enabled a button labeled done in the upper right corner. Clicking done completed the registration process.
At the bottom of the third screen, white text that wasn't predominantly displayed informed users that by creating an Uber account, they were agreeing to Uber's terms and conditions and privacy policy.
The words terms and conditions and privacy policy appeared in bold face in a rectangular box.
Clicking this box took the user to a separate screen with clickable buttons labeled terms and conditions and privacy policy.
From this screen, clicking on the terms and conditions button brought up the terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions were broad and extensive.
One provision released Uber from all liability for any damages or loss. Another required all disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.
Kauders sued Uber in Massachusetts state court, alleging that Uber's drivers unlawfully discriminated against him by refusing to give him rides because of his guide dog. Uber moved to compel arbitration.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the parties hadn't agreed to arbitrate.
Uber appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeal. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case to itself.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kauders-v-uber-technologies-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kauders-v-uber-technologies-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kauders v. Uber Technologies Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
486 Mass. 557, 159 N.E.3d 1033 (2021)
Nowadays, virtually any online transaction can result in a consumer being party to extensive contract terms the consumer was only vaguely aware of. Cauters versus Uber Technologies concerned the enforceability of one such agreement.
Christopher Kauders was blind and used a guide dog. In order to use Uber Technologies transportation service, Kauders registered with Uber via the company's app on his mobile phone.
The registration process involved three separate screens.
Each screen had a dark background with the screen's title in capital letters in a gray bar at the top. The first screen was titled create an account. It required Kauders to enter his email address, cell phone number, and a password.
Entering the information enabled a button in the top right corner of the screen labeled next.
Clicking this button brought up the next screen. The second screen was titled create a profile.
This screen required Kauders to enter his first and last name with an option to enter a photograph.
Clicking next again brought Kauders to the third screen titled link payment.
This screen offered a choice of entering credit card information or linking to a PayPal account.
Completing this information, enabled a button labeled done in the upper right corner. Clicking done completed the registration process.
At the bottom of the third screen, white text that wasn't predominantly displayed informed users that by creating an Uber account, they were agreeing to Uber's terms and conditions and privacy policy.
The words terms and conditions and privacy policy appeared in bold face in a rectangular box.
Clicking this box took the user to a separate screen with clickable buttons labeled terms and conditions and privacy policy.
From this screen, clicking on the terms and conditions button brought up the terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions were broad and extensive.
One provision released Uber from all liability for any damages or loss. Another required all disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.
Kauders sued Uber in Massachusetts state court, alleging that Uber's drivers unlawfully discriminated against him by refusing to give him rides because of his guide dog. Uber moved to compel arbitration.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the parties hadn't agreed to arbitrate.
Uber appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeal. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case to itself.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kauders-v-uber-technologies-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kauders-v-uber-technologies-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
