A court blocks a couple from suing Uber over a crash, citing terms and conditions

Ah yes. Binding arbitration clauses, just as the forefathers intended.

Time for another court to finally set the precedent the EULAs and Terms & Conditions are bullshit because it's expected that no one will read them, and therefore no one has actually agreed to anything

Reminds me of a recent Disney case:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

It bothers me that we as a society continue to surrender our agency, our rights, and even our well-being to whatever restrictions a corporation makes up to benefit itself, just because they're in a (practically unavoidable) terms & conditions document.

It's getting so bad that people sometimes mistake corporate policies for law, crying "that's illegal" if someone steps outside the bounds of a software license.

Adding insult to injury, enforcement of these things is paid for by us, through taxes.

It the governments job to uphold the constitution and protect our right, they are failing by allowing corporations bypass the highest laws of the land with a fucking nonnegotiable hundred page terms & conditions document.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

- every United States President

Seventh Amendment - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, [snip]

I'm surprised arbitration holds up. I can believe the court say it comes first and the reasoning of arbitration should be given to the jury along with instructions that they can disbar a lawyer who tries to reverse something the arbitration decides when arbitration was correct, but ultimately the right to a jury trial is required.

UBER EATS terms and conditions.