Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

Case No. 14-cv-5200-EMC

Case No. 15-cv-0262-EMC

ORDER RE REVISED ARBITRATION 

PROVISION AND CORRECTIVE 

COVER LETTER

On January 13, 2016, the parties submitted a “Joint Statement Regarding a Further Revised 

Arbitration Provision and Corrective Cover Letter.” O’Connor, Docket No. 462; In re Uber 

FCRA Litigation, Docket No. 154; Yucesoy, Docket No. 180 (Joint Statement). The Court has 

reviewed the revised arbitration provision and corrective cover letter, and resolves the issues 

raised by the parties as follows.

First, Plaintiffs propose characterizing the O’Connor action as a nationwide class action. 

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 156 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

The Court has previously found that the California laws upon which the O’Connor Plaintiffs rely 

do not apply extra-territorially, and thus limited the case to drivers who worked in California. See

O’Connor, Docket No. 136 at 16-21. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposal, as shown by the 

attached Exhibit A.

Second, Uber reiterates its view that it may enforce the new arbitration agreement against 

the O’Connor class as to certified claims. Joint Statement at 5 n.3. The Court again rejects this

contention, which is inconsistent with Uber’s prior position represented to the Court and the 

public. See O’Connor, Docket No. 408, Exh. C; Docket No. 410 at 4; Docket No. 428 at 38:24-

39:7. The new arbitration agreement is unenforceable against the O’Connor class as to certified 

claims. See O’Connor, Docket No. 454 at 4 n.1.

Third, Uber requests reconsideration of the Court’s finding that the corrective cover letter 

must be distributed to prospective drivers. Joint Statement at 9. The Court denies this request; as 

a practical matter, once an individual signs up as a driver, he or she becomes a putative class 

member, i.e., in the nation-wide In re Uber FCRA Litigation case (as well as the other class 

actions that have been filed throughout the country).

Fourth, a redlined version of the corrective cover letter is attached as Exhibit B. With 

respect to the opt-out function, despite the Court expressing its concerns about the adequacy of 

Uber’s prior suggestion, Uber again proposes to have a link to the arbitration agreement’s opt-out 

provision. See O’Connor, Docket No. 454 at 6; Joint Statement at 7. The Court finds this 

proposal inadequate, and will require a pre-addressed e-mail accessible via hyperlink. The content 

of this e-mail (which the parties were also unable to agree on) will be: “My name is . I opt 

out of the Arbitration Provision in the driver-partner agreement.”

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 156 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Finally, the Court finds that when sent to the drivers, the subject heading of the corrective 

cover letter will be: “Notice re Updated Driver-Partner Agreement and Opt-Out from Arbitration 

Agreement.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 156 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 3