美国法院查明优步用户同意仲裁索赔后，驳回了以《电话消费者保护法》(TelephoneConsumer Protection Act)主张权利的集体诉讼

原告Charles Johnson以优步公司发送营销短信，侵犯了《电话消费者保护法》中享有的权利，起诉优步科技有限公司(“Uber”)(No. 16 C 5468 (N.D.III. Sep. 20,2018) ，47 U.S.C. § 227。2013年7月，约翰逊下载了优步软件。为了能够获取授权登录该软件，约翰逊同意遵守当时生效的优步服务条款，以及将来可能新增的修订版本。

服务条款涉及到争端解决,该条文中明确表明用户和优步公司双方都同意由协议引起的任何争议或索赔时，将由具有约束力的仲裁解决,除非一方当事人在小额诉讼中保留提起个人诉讼的权利，以及对滥用一方的著作权、商标权、商业秘密、专利或其他知识产权造成的实质损害或损害威胁提出管辖权异议。

服务条款中以加粗的字体明确表示:“用户方同意和软件提供方均放弃将争议提起诉讼的权利， 或放弃以原告或类似身份参与任何的集体诉讼或代表诉讼的权利。”

约翰逊不记得自己曾浏览过服务条款且自己也从未申请使用优步软件，另外声称自己已经从手机上删除了优步软件。约翰逊称，删除优步软件后，优步向他发送了一条询问他是否想注册成为优步司机的营销短信。

法院认为，仲裁是合同的产物，但仲裁协议的生效与否需要符合法律的规定。因此，法院根据伊利诺斯州的法律规定，该法规定需以合理方式提请消费者注意通过单击按钮就表示客户同意协议的所有条款和条件。伊利诺斯州上诉法院在涉及戴尔电脑一案的先例中, 法院认为,在这种情况下,提供格式条款的一方，应当将条款的内容和条件以合理的方式提请对方注意。

法院认为，正如戴尔案例一样，约翰逊注册优步账户的应用程序中包含了一款条文:“同意服务条款和隐私政策，方可注册优步账户。”屏幕同页上有一个清晰的超链接。法院还提到了巡回法庭有关优步的另一项判决，根据加州法律，注册优步账户的人，无论是否点击了超链接，都默示其同意超链接中包含的条款和条件。法院进一步解释说，很容易区分原告所援引的案例，因为这些判例中没有超链接，也没有明确声明该交易需受条款的约束。原告忽略超链接提供的服务条款的行为没有证明力。

约翰逊提出，无论他是否与优步达成仲裁协议，《电话消费者保护法》规定享有的索赔请求不应受该协议的约束。法院驳回了该意见，并支持了优步的意见，其认为仲裁条款语言的宽泛性意味着仲裁员应该确定争议是否属于仲裁条款的范围。法院批准了优步的即审即决动议，公正地驳回了该类索赔请求，将争议移交仲裁解决。

【英文原文】

U.S.: District court dismisses classaction based on Telephone Consumer Protection Act upon finding that users of the Uber app agreed to arbitrate claims.

Author: Eileen Flynn and Grant Hanessian

Plaintiff Charles Johnson sued Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) (No. 16 C 5468 (N.D. III. Sep. 20, 2018)) for sending an unsolicited text message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Johnson downloaded the Uber app in July 2013. As part of his signing up to use the app, Johnson agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Uber Terms of Service then in effect and any future amendments or additions as may be published. The Terms of Service included a Dispute Resolution section, which stated that both the user and Uber agree that any dispute or claim arising out of the Agreement “will be settled by binding arbitration, except that such 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.” In bold-faced font, the Terms of Service further stated “You acknowledge and agree that you and Company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class User in any purported class action or representative proceeding.”

Johnson did not recall reading the Terms of Service. Johnson never requested a ride using the Uber app and further claims to have deleted the Uber app from his phone. Johnson alleged that, after this deletion, Uber sent a single unsolicited text message to his mobile phonenumber asking him whether he wanted to sign up to be an Uber driver.

The court noted that arbitration is a creature of contract and whether an agreement to arbitrate has been formed is governed by state law. As such, the court turned to Illinois law, which requires that a consumer be provided reasonable notice of all the terms and conditions of an agreement as well as reasonable notice that, by clicking a button, the customer is assenting to the agreement. Referring to Illinois appellate court precedent in a case involving Dell computers, the district court noted that, in that case, the court held that the statement that sales were subject to terms and conditions which appeared on web forms completed by a party would place a reasonable person on notice that there were terms and conditions attached to the purchase.

The district court noted that, as inthe Dell case, the app which Johnson used to create an Uber account included the statement: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.” This contained a hyperlink, was legible, and required no scrolling on the screen to see it. The court also referred to a Second Circuit decision involving Uber that held, under California law, that the person creating an Uber account agreed to the terms and conditions contained in the hyperlink, regardless of whether he clicked on the hyperlink. The court further explained that the cases relied on by the Plaintiff were readilydistinguishable, as they involved situations where there was no hyperlink orclear statement that the purchase was subject to terms and conditions. Thechoice of the Plaintiff not to read the terms of service provided via hyperlinkhad no probative force.

Johnson also argued that, regardlessof whether he entered into an arbitration agreement with Uber, the TCPA claimdid not fall within the scope of that agreement. The court rejected thatargument. The court also agreed with Uber that the broad language of thearbitration clause meant that the arbitrator should determine whether a disputefalls within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court granted Uber’ssummary judgment motion, dismissed the class claims without prejudice andstayed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings.

                                                                                                               来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA