The terms assert that questions about whether a dispute must go to arbitration, including claims that the arbitration agreement itself is unenforceable or unconscionable, must be decided by an arbitrator rather than a court, with the specific exception that courts have exclusive authority over class and mass action waiver disputes.
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 delegates threshold arbitrability determinations, including unconscionability challenges to the arbitration agreement itself, to the arbitrator rather than a court. The carve-out preserving court authority over class and mass action waiver disputes is operationally significant, as it creates a bifurcated authority structure between arbitrators and courts.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of delegation clauses in adhesion consumer contracts varies by circuit and may be subject to state unconscionability challenges depending on jurisdiction and FAA preemption analysis.
Under this clause, a user who challenges the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement must raise that challenge before an arbitrator rather than a court, except for challenges specifically directed at the class or mass action waivers. The agreement asserts that arbitrators, not courts, determine whether the arbitration terms apply to a given dispute.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Delegation Clause and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →"Only an arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement, including without limitation any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. An arbitrator shall also have exclusive authority to resolve all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether these Terms are applicable, unconscionable, or illusory and any defense to arbitration, including without limitation waiver, delay, laches, or estoppel. However, only a court of competent jurisdiction, and not an arbitrator, shall have the exclusive authority to resolve any and all disputes concerning the Class Action Waiver and Mass Action Waiver.Excerpt from Uber's Terms of Use
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Delegation clauses have been the subject of significant judicial scrutiny under the FAA.
Enforcement risk, jurisdiction flags, contract triggers, and due diligence action items.
Get the 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.
This provision delegates threshold arbitrability determinations, including unconscionability challenges to the arbitration agreement itself, to the arbitrator rather than a court. The carve-out preserving court authority over class and mass action waiver disputes is operationally significant, as it creates a bifurcated authority structure between arbitrators and courts.
Under this clause, a user who challenges the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement must raise that challenge before an arbitrator rather than a court, except for challenges specifically directed at the class or mass action waivers. The agreement asserts that arbitrators, not courts, determine whether the arbitration terms apply to a given dispute.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Uber.