SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Washington DC Significant Case Summary
Walker v. Uber Techs., Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26311
Decided: August 28, 2026
The trial court properly denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration following a motor vehicle collision in which an Uber rider was severely injured because there was no evidence that the rider ever read or accepted Uber’s Terms of Use.
Background
To access the rideshare services provided by Uber, a user is required to register an account and accept Uber’s Terms of Use, which contains an arbitration agreement for all claims arising out of Uber’s services. Under Uber’s guest ride feature, an Uber user can call a ride for another individual, and that individual will receive a text message informing them of their ride details and containing a link to Uber’s Terms of Use. Taking the guest ride, however, does not require the guest user to read or accept the Terms of Use, and Uber has no way of confirming whether a guest user ever saw the text message prior to taking the guest ride.
On March 18, 2021, the appellee called an Uber ride for her husband using Uber’s guest ride feature. Appellee’s husband claimed that he never saw the text message sent to him by Uber. During the ride, the driver allegedly became distracted by notifications sent by the Uber app and caused a crash that caused significant injuries to Appellee’s husband and ultimately required the amputation of both his legs above the knee.
Appellee sued Uber in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting vicarious and direct negligence and products liability claims related to Uber’s design of its app for drivers. Uber moved to compel arbitration, contending that Appellee’s husband was bound by the Terms of Use and the arbitration provision contained therein when he took the guest ride. The trial court denied Uber’s motion, finding that Uber’s text message had not placed Appellee’s husband on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use and that, even if Appellee’s husband was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Use, DC law did not permit a party to a contract to enforce an arbitration provision against a third-party beneficiary.
Holding
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the trial court did not err in denying Uber’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court held that Appellee’s husband was not on inquiry notice of the Terms of Use because Uber’s guest ride system never required Appellee’s husband to click on an “I accept” button or otherwise expressly assent to the terms. The Court stated that the text message sent by Uber was insufficient to generate inquiry notice and, even so, there is no evidence that Appellee’s husband even saw the text message.
The Court of Appeals also held that the third-party beneficiary doctrine afforded Uber no basis to bind Appellee’s husband to the Terms of Use. The Court stated that the traditional rule with respect to third-party beneficiaries – that once a third-party beneficiary sues to enforce a contract they cannot avoid duties under the contract – does not apply here because Appellee’s husband is not attempting to enforce Appellee’s rights under her contract with Uber. Appellee brought tort claims against Uber based on duties that Uber owed Appellee, not in any contract.
Questions about this case may be directed to Sam Hemmingstad at (202) 978-2049 or shemmingstad@tthlaw.com.