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.
The agreement asserts that the arbitration obligation extends to claims brought by or against third parties, including guest riders, spouses, domestic partners, heirs, and assigns, where their claims relate to the account holder's use of the services. The account holder is stated to be responsible for informing guest riders of these terms and the arbitration obligation.
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 asserts that individuals who did not directly agree to the Uber terms of service, such as guest riders or family members, are bound by the arbitration agreement through the account holder's acceptance. The enforceability of binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements varies by jurisdiction and may be subject to challenge under applicable contract and agency law principles.
Interpretive note: Enforceability of arbitration obligations against non-signatory third parties varies significantly by jurisdiction and applicable contract law principles; claims involving minors may face additional challenges.
Under this clause, a guest rider, family member, or other third party whose claim arises from the account holder's use of the platform may be subject to the arbitration requirement even if they did not personally agree to Uber's terms. The agreement places responsibility on the account holder to communicate these terms to guest riders.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Third-Party Beneficiary Arbitration Binding 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.
"This Arbitration Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall include any claims brought by or against any third parties, including but not limited to your guests, spouse, domestic partner, heirs, estate, third-party beneficiaries and assigns, where their underlying claims arise out of or relate to your use of the Services or their use of the Services at your invitation. For the avoidance of doubt, third-party beneficiaries include 'guest riders,' meaning individuals for whom you request a ride through the Services, whether such guest riders ride with you or without you. You acknowledge and agree that you are responsible for providing any guest rider with these Terms, including this Arbitration Agreement.Excerpt from Uber's Terms of Use
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The enforceability of arbitration agreements against non-signatories is governed by both the FAA and state contract law principles including equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary theory, and agency. Courts have reached varying conclusions on binding non-signatories to arbitration, and the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in several decisions without establishing a uniform rule across all fact patterns. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. Binding third parties including minors, heirs, and non-contracting guests to arbitration through an account holder's agreement raises enforceability questions that may be litigated. The practical ability of account holders to communicate terms to all guest riders as required by the agreement is also operationally uncertain. JURISDICTION FLAGS: States with strong consumer protection frameworks and courts skeptical of expansive third-party arbitration binding, including California, may scrutinize this provision in personal injury or death claim contexts. Claims involving minors as guest riders may face additional enforceability challenges under state contract law regarding capacity. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: The provision places a contractual obligation on account holders to communicate terms to guest riders, creating a compliance burden that is largely unenforceable in practice. Legal teams should assess how this provision interacts with any insurance or liability frameworks applicable to ride-hailing services. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should assess whether the practical mechanism for informing guest riders of arbitration obligations is sufficient to withstand enforceability challenges, particularly in personal injury and death claim contexts where courts have scrutinized adhesion arbitration clauses most closely.
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 asserts that individuals who did not directly agree to the Uber terms of service, such as guest riders or family members, are bound by the arbitration agreement through the account holder's acceptance. The enforceability of binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements varies by jurisdiction and may be subject to challenge under applicable contract and agency law principles.
Under this clause, a guest rider, family member, or other third party whose claim arises from the account holder's use of the platform may be subject to the arbitration requirement even if they did not personally agree to Uber's terms. The agreement places responsibility on the account holder to communicate these terms to guest riders.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Uber.