| Volume 112 Number 9 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Your obligation to pay your credit card bill on time is satisfied when the check is received, not mailed. It is your responsibility to mail the check early enough to arrive before the due date. A good way to solve the problem of delayed mail is to pay your bill online.
Click here for more.
California Declares Uber drivers are Employees, not Contractors
The California Labor Commission has ruled that Uber drivers are employees of Uber and not independent contractors as Uber has argued. Uber claimed that its drivers are independent contractors and that it merely puts them together with consumers wanting rides. The California Labor Commission rejected that claim, finding that Uber was involved in every aspect of the operation. The ruling means that, at least in California, Uber may have increased costs of doing business since employees are entitled to benefits such as Social Security, Worker’s Compensation, and unemployment insurance.
Click here for more.
Your Money
The wealthy have the attention of financial advisors to make sure that their portfolios are balanced on a regular basis. What about the rest of us? The answer might be in computer programs that can track our investments and let us know when we need to make changes. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Uber arbitration agreement held unenforceable. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that both the 2013 and 2014 versions of Uber’s contracts with its drivers were both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and, therefore, unenforceable as a matter of California law. The court found that although plaintiff validly assented to the terms of the contract, the arbitration provisions were procedurally unconscionable because the opt-out clause was “inconspicuous and incredibly onerous to comply with.” The court also found the provision was substantively unconscionable because it is “permeated with substantively unconscionable terms:” it waives plaintiffs’ right to bring certain claims in any forum, it has an impermissible fee-shifting clause, a carve-out that “permits Uber to litigate the claims most valuable to it in court . . . while requiring its drivers to arbitrate those claims. . .they are most likely to bring against Uber,” and a provision that gives Uber authority to modify contract terms unilaterally and at any time. Mohamed v. Uber and Gillette v. Uber Click here for more.