© Getty images
The drive to arbitration: Lindsey Sasson compares & contrasts Uber’s British & US legal strategies
- US courts are regularly dismissing negligence claims against Uber at the dispositive stage, relying on the independent contractor doctrine and contractual disclaimers.
- In England and Wales, the private hire vehicle licensing regime creates a statutory basis for operator liability that Uber’s standard contractual disclaimers cannot as easily contract away.
- Drivers on both sides of the Atlantic bear significant personal financial risk, caught between platforms that disclaim responsibility and dispute whether they are employees at all, or merely ‘independent contractors,’ resulting in insurers whose cover may not respond during commercial hire activity.
Uber has systematically insulated itself from liability for drivers’ conduct in the US and England and Wales. It has deployed a range of legal mechanisms—arbitration clauses, class action waivers, independent contractor classification, and contractual disclaimers—through which the company achieves early dismissal of negligence claims in US arbitration proceedings.
In the US, the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp v Lewis transformed Uber’s arbitration strategy from a litigation
