Compare arbitration governance provisions between Uber and DoorDash. Provisions are extracted from monitored governance documents and classified by severity.
The arbitration requirement establishes a procedural framework that channels most disputes into private arbitration rather than court litigation, affecting how contractual disagreements and claims are adjudicated and the venues available for resolution.
Consumer impact
Users agreeing to these terms accept that disputes with Uber will be resolved through binding arbitration, except for small claims court actions and intellectual property matters. This mechanism supersedes the standard litigation pathway for the specified categories of disputes.
Opt-out available
✓ Yes — Send written notice of your decision to opt out of arbitration to Uber's Legal Department at the ad…
Actual clause text
You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or the use of the Services or Application (collectively, "Disputes") will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, except that each party retains the right to bring an individual action in small claims court and the right to seek injunctive or other equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the actual or threatened infringement, misappropriation or violation of a party's copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents or other intellectual property rights.
AI-extracted from source document. Verify against original for legal use.
The arbitration mechanism alters the procedural framework for dispute resolution by requiring private arbitration instead of judicial proceedings and eliminates the availability of class action procedures. This affects how users can aggregate claims, access courts, and obtain jury trials for disputes with the company.
Consumer impact
Users are required to pursue individual claims through arbitration rather than court proceedings and are prohibited from participating in class or representative actions (subject to geographic and claim-type exceptions noted in the clause). The terms specify that users may opt out of this arbitration agreement, but the arbitration framework applies as written upon continued use unless an opt-out is exercised according to the procedures in Section 14.
Opt-out available
✓ Yes — Send a written notice to DoorDash within 30 days of first accepting these terms stating your name, …
Actual clause text
SECTION 14 OF THIS AGREEMENT (WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO CANADA CONSUMERS RESIDING IN THE PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC) CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT GOVERN HOW CLAIMS THAT YOU AND WE HAVE AGAINST EACH OTHER ARE RESOLVED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY CLAIMS THAT AROSE OR WERE ASSERTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN PARTICULAR, SECTION 14 SETS FORTH OUR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISPUTES BETWEEN US TO BE SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS (FOR EXAMPLE, NEW ZEALAND CONSUMERS ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 14(c)(iv) OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND UNITED STATES CONSUMERS DO NOT NEED TO ARBITRATE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL ASSAULT IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR USE OF THE SERVICES). UNLESS YOU OPT OUT OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW: (1) YOU WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE CLAIMS AND SEEK RELIEF AGAINST US ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR PROCEEDING (EXCEPT FOR AUSTRALIA CONSUMERS); AND (2) YOU ARE WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO SEEK RELIEF IN A COURT OF LAW AND TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL ON YOUR CLAIMS. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT COULD AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PENDING OR PROPOSED CLASS ACTION LITIGATION.
AI-extracted from source document. Verify against original for legal use.
DoorDash removed the header line identifying the document's country and language jurisdiction (Coun…
AI Difference AnalysisProfessional
Stripe's arbitration clause is narrower than Amazon's in one key respect: it includes a small claims court carve-out that Amazon's clause does not. PayPal's clause is the most aggressive of the three, explicitly waiving jury trial rights in addition to class action rights. From a compliance perspective, Amazon presents the lowest risk for B2B contracts while PayPal creates the highest exposure for consumer-facing applications subject to CFPB oversight.