Singh v. Blacklane North America Inc.

Background

Harjeet Singh and Jasbir Singh filed a proposed class action on behalf of California limousine drivers. They alleged that Blacklane misclassified them and proposed class members as independent contractors even though they were employees under California law, and they asserted various California labor-law claims.

Blacklane moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration language in the Terms of Use for its Chauffeurs App. The court had previously denied that motion without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs limited discovery about whether they had received notice of the Terms of Use. After discovery ended, Blacklane renewed its motion to compel arbitration and asked the court to stay the case. The plaintiffs also moved to file a supplemental brief and declarations.

Acceptance of the Terms of Use

The court found that Blacklane proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiffs accepted the Terms of Use. Blacklane began rolling out the relevant version in March 2024 and emailed the plaintiffs on March 13, 2024, stating that acceptance would be mandatory to continue using the Chauffeurs App.

Beginning April 8, 2024, an app update prevented drivers from using the app until they accepted the Terms of Use. The pop-up notice stated that by tapping “I agree,” the user agreed to the Terms and acknowledged the privacy policy. The word “Terms” was underlined, displayed in green, and linked to the Terms of Use. Records showed that the chauffeur IDs associated with the plaintiffs’ accounts accepted the Terms between April 14 and July 10, 2024.

The plaintiffs argued that Blacklane may have fabricated evidence, relying on redactions, Blacklane’s use of a mockup rather than a cellphone screenshot, and the addition of the Terms of Use to an online help page in October 2024. The court found that these circumstances did not support an inference of fabrication and did not create a genuine dispute about acceptance. The court also found that the notice was sufficiently clear and conspicuous and that the plaintiffs’ statements that they did not remember accepting the Terms were not enough to create a material factual dispute.

Relationship Between the Agreements

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that a no-modifications provision in the Partner Contracts prevented Blacklane from enforcing the later Terms of Use. The Partner Contracts were between Blacklane and local service providers, while the Terms of Use were between Blacklane and individual chauffeurs who used the Chauffeurs App.

The plaintiffs signed the Partner Contracts on behalf of local service providers rather than in their individual capacities. The court concluded that the Partner Contracts and Terms of Use were separate, independent agreements serving different purposes. The Partner Contracts governed the local service providers’ provision of services to Blacklane, while the Terms of Use governed the relationship between individual drivers and Blacklane.

Transportation-Worker Exemption

The plaintiffs argued that the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation-worker exemption made the arbitration agreement unenforceable. That exemption removes certain employment contracts involving workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce from the Act’s coverage.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not prove that the class of workers to which they belonged was engaged in interstate commerce. The plaintiffs pointed to rides involving passengers who booked through Emirates Airlines and stated that a substantial portion of their own rides involved Emirates passengers. But the record did not show the nationwide percentage of Blacklane rides booked through Emirates or other airlines, or whether Blacklane offered those rides in other U.S. cities.

The court found this evidence insufficient to show that Blacklane drivers as a class were engaged in interstate commerce. The court stated that it therefore did not reach the inadequately briefed question of whether the Terms of Use were employment contracts, and it also did not reach whether the plaintiffs were transportation workers.

Scope of the Arbitration Provision

The Terms of Use contained an arbitration provision covering all claims arising from a chauffeur’s engagement to provide services on a local service provider’s behalf. The provision expressly included employment or wage claims against the local service provider or Blacklane and stated that arbitration was the sole and exclusive forum for those claims.

The plaintiffs did not dispute that the provision covered their claims. The court therefore concluded that Blacklane showed that the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their California labor-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted Blacklane’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. It also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file a supplemental brief and declarations. All claims were stayed pending arbitration. The parties must file a joint report every 180 days about the arbitration proceedings, beginning on the date of the order, and within 14 days after the arbitration proceedings conclude.