Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
Before filing for arbitration, users must complete a mandatory informal dispute resolution process requiring written notice followed by a personal telephone or videoconference meeting with Uber within 60 days. The arbitrator is required to dismiss any arbitration demand filed before this process is completed, and multiple claimants may not share the same conference.
This analysis describes what Uber's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision establishes a procedural condition precedent that must be satisfied before arbitration can commence, with automatic dismissal of non-compliant demands. The requirement that each individual claimant conduct a separate conference, combined with the 60-day timeline, creates a sequential procedural burden for users seeking to resolve disputes.
The agreement requires users to complete a personal informal dispute resolution conference with Uber before any arbitration demand can be filed, with the arbitrator required to dismiss demands that skip this step. Users must send written notice to Uber's Legal Department and participate personally in a telephone or videoconference within 60 days of Uber receiving that notice.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Pre-Arbitration Informal Dispute Resolution Requirement and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Uber has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 20 platforms.
"The parties therefore agree that, before either party demands arbitration against the other, you and Uber will personally meet and confer, via telephone or videoconference, in a good-faith effort to resolve informally any claim covered by this Arbitration Agreement. Multiple individuals initiating claims cannot participate in the same informal telephonic dispute resolution conference. Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, if either party is represented by counsel, that party's counsel may participate in the conference, but the party must also appear at and fully participate in the conference. The party initiating the claim must give notice to the other party in writing of their intent to initiate an informal dispute resolution conference, which shall occur within 60 days after the other party receives such notice, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the parties. Engaging in an informal dispute resolution conference is a condition precedent that must be fulfilled before commencing arbitration, and the Arbitrator shall dismiss any arbitration demand filed before completion of an informal dispute resolution conference.Excerpt from Uber's Terms of Use
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Mandatory pre-arbitration notice and conference requirements in consumer contracts have been evaluated by courts under the FAA for whether they function as unreasonable barriers to arbitration. Courts in several circuits have found that conditions precedent to arbitration can be enforceable but may be scrutinized where they impose disproportionate burdens on consumer claimants. The FTC may evaluate such requirements as part of broader consumer protection analysis. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The individual conference requirement, combined with the prohibition on multiple claimants sharing a conference, may create operational burdens for users with smaller claims where the cost of participating in a separate conference exceeds the claim value. The statute of limitations tolling during the informal process partially mitigates this concern. JURISDICTION FLAGS: California and other jurisdictions with consumer protection frameworks may evaluate whether the 60-day conference requirement, combined with other procedural requirements, functions as an unreasonable barrier to dispute resolution. Courts reviewing mass action scenarios may also evaluate whether the individual conference requirement was designed to deter claims. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Organizations with contractual relationships with Uber should assess whether this pre-arbitration requirement applies to their dispute resolution obligations and whether internal escalation procedures need to account for the 60-day timeline and written notice requirements. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Operational teams should ensure that Uber's Legal Department has documented procedures for receiving and responding to pre-arbitration notices and that the 60-day conference timeline is consistently managed. Failure to respond may affect the procedural posture of subsequent arbitration proceedings.
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, and regulatory mapping built from archived source documents and historical version tracking.
This provision establishes a procedural condition precedent that must be satisfied before arbitration can commence, with automatic dismissal of non-compliant demands. The requirement that each individual claimant conduct a separate conference, combined with the 60-day timeline, creates a sequential procedural burden for users seeking to resolve disputes.
The agreement requires users to complete a personal informal dispute resolution conference with Uber before any arbitration demand can be filed, with the arbitrator required to dismiss demands that skip this step. Users must send written notice to Uber's Legal Department and participate personally in a telephone or videoconference within 60 days of Uber receiving that notice.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Uber.