Nuriyev v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Ruslan Nuriyev filed state- and federal-law claims against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Checkr, Inc. The case was removed from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the Northern District of California. Nuriyev alleged that Uber denied him access after stating that he had used a falsified Social Security number, and that Checkr had canceled his background check because of an invalid Social Security number. He asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as claims for defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, unfair business practices, and discrimination based on immigration status.

Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Nuriyev opposed the motion. The court denied his request to file a sur-reply and resolved the motion without oral argument.

Arbitration Agreement

Nuriyev signed up to use Uber’s platform twice, on January 21 and February 16, 2024. Each time, he logged into a newly created driver account using a unique username and password, reviewed a screen linking to Uber’s Platform Access Agreement, and clicked “YES, I AGREE.” He was required to confirm acceptance a second time. The agreement contained an arbitration provision covering disputes related to his relationship with Uber, his application for and use of the platform and driver application, background checks, privacy, discrimination, and claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other federal and state laws.

The agreement also allowed a user to opt out of arbitration by sending an email within 30 days. It stated that disputes about the arbitration provision’s formation, scope, enforceability, validity, and related issues would be decided by an arbitrator. The agreement extended to disputes with other entities or individuals covered by its terms, and defendants argued that it applied to Checkr as well as Uber.

Court’s Analysis

Under California contract law, the court considered whether the parties formed a valid agreement. The court found no dispute about the parties’ ability to contract, the lawful purpose of arbitration, or consideration. It focused on mutual assent, meaning whether Nuriyev accepted the agreement.

The court held that defendants met their burden by providing a sworn declaration stating that Nuriyev’s unique username and password were used to accept the agreement twice, along with authenticated electronic records showing the dates and times of acceptance. The court also relied on Nuriyev’s admission that he completed the steps on Uber’s and Checkr’s platforms, which required acceptance of the agreement.

The court rejected Nuriyev’s arguments that failing to opt out did not show assent and that defendants had not shown he read or understood the agreement. It also rejected his assertion that he could not have accepted the agreement before completing the Checkr background check, finding that the authenticated records contradicted that assertion.

The court further found that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about arbitrability—the gateway questions about whether a dispute must be arbitrated—to the arbitrator. It concluded that the arbitration provision covered the dispute. Finally, the court found that defendants had not waived arbitration because they preserved their right to arbitrate in their state-court answers and notice of removal, and their conduct did not establish waiver.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion to compel arbitration. It ordered that arbitration proceedings begin within 60 days of the order, required defendants to submit a status report on commencement by December 5, 2025, and STAYED all court proceedings pending a final disposition of arbitration. The order did not decide the merits of Nuriyev’s claims.