Uber’s Terms of Use: Arbitration Clause

Farva Jafri
Lawyer, Entrepreneur
Mike Whelan
Chief Community Officer

Uber’s terms of use is an intriguing and unique document that deeply explores facets of arbitration which other companies usually don’t address. Having worked with numerous tech companies, Farva Jafri, a contracts lawyer from New York, tears down the arbitration section in this terms of use. She explains how drafters can create functional documents by balancing the need for user-friendly terms and a comprehensive document that doesn’t miss the details. She tells us both, the backstory of Uber’s terms of use and how it shaped their drafting developments.

Questions in this Episode

  1. What is the best mindset to adopt when dealing with such documents?
  2. What are the drafting best practices for an arbitration section?
  3. What should drafters take away from Uber’s drafting developments?
  4. How can drafters create terms that are both user-friendly terms and comprehensive?
  5. What makes these documents functional?

Download K-Notes Now

The Case that Changed Uber’s Terms of Use 

This document has been reviewed and modified numerous times. It started with a blind man in Massachusetts who attempted to enter three different Uber cars using his seeing-eye dog. He was turned down by all three. He filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination. He was forced to go through arbitration, and when he lost, his lawyers filed an appeal.

Uber's terms of use have been well drafted and thoroughly reviewed. - Farva Jafri #ContractTeardown Click To Tweet

They were able to come in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled that the litigant did not have to go through arbitration or be bound by it. He was not bound by the terms of service simply because they were available on the app. He did not have to take affirmative action to agree to them, so he was not bound by them. They further point out in the judgment that drivers are only Uber’s contractors who must press two buttons on the website, but this is not the case for passengers.

Reasonability vs Legalese – Choose Wisely

In law school, we learned that an offer can be accepted orally. That makes perfect sense in some cases. For example, if you call your plumber and tell him you have a broken pipe and your bathroom isn’t working, he won’t send over a document to review and sign. He’ll simply come over and perform the service. He accepted this arrangement by completing this work because you promised to pay him something. However, this does not apply to Uber, and the effectiveness of this is dubious for technological companies.

By accessing or using the Services, you confirm your agreement to be bound by these Terms. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use the Services. These Terms expressly supersede prior agreements or arrangements with you regarding the use of the Services.

There’s a lot of legalese in these documents, and the terms you’re agreeing to aren’t exactly straightforward. It’s not very effective for Uber to say, “If you get in one of these cars from a third-party provider, it means you agree to all of our terms of service.”

Consider a reasonable standard. The entire interface is experimenting with technology, but how hard is it to add one more button?

Good Practices When Drafting an Arbitration Section 

Whether you’re a rider or a user of the app, Uber makes a great deal out of the fact that you’re agreeing to binding arbitration. They spend an entire section on just arbitration, which is unique. 

Please be advised that this agreement contains provisions that govern how claims between you and Uber can be brought, including the arbitration agreement (see section 2 below). Please review the arbitration agreement below carefully, as it requires you to resolve all disputes with Uber on an individual basis and, with limited exceptions, through final and binding arbitration (as described in section 2 below) by entering into this agreement you expressly acknowledge that you have read and understand all of the terms of this agreement and have taken time to consider the consequences of this important decision.

The arbitration part is extensive and it details all of the ways you are waiving your right to a trial.

“It’s a good practice for both the company and the consumer to use arbitration because you know what you’re getting upfront.” - Farva Jafri

By using the app and agreeing to the terms of service, you agree to arbitrate, and there are only a few instances in which you can go to trial or bring this in a court of law. One shortcoming is that you’re stuck in arbitration, which entails a lot of things, including heavy fees.

How Documents Develop Over Time 

Section (a) is extremely broad. It states that “any dispute, claim, or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to…” which suggests that any claims relating to the terms and previous versions should be resolved by arbitration. It also waives your right to a jury trial and prevents you from participating in class actions.

Section (b) is slightly different as it discusses the exceptions to arbitration and is drafted clearly. It discusses the three specific circumstances in which you can sidestep arbitration and proceed with litigation:

  • if you have a small claim,
  • If you have been sexually harassed or assaulted, or
  • if you need injunctive relief (an arbitrator cannot give that).

The “sexually harassed or assaulted” qualifier has to do with Uber’s early days. There were several examples of drivers assaulting passengers, which coincided with the me-too movement. This is an updated version for 2017, immediately following the case. It may be due to the me-too movement, their own cases, or simply a public relations issue, but it’s a really interesting and distinct circumstance.

Learn From Mistakes 

Having triple A’s is quite interesting and not very common in terms of use. Section (c) requires not only that you resort to arbitration, but also that you use the American Arbitration Association rather than other arbitrators. Essentially, it provides Uber the ability to appoint the arbitrator as the final decision maker on the claims. They have also clearly specified that the Federal Arbitration Act would control the interpretation and enforcement of the proceedings. Uber is now a public company so shareholders will be furious if they make mistakes and don’t clean them up in-house.

“While bigger companies would simply say all arbitration laws would apply to all states, Uber was very specific which indicates having gone through many rounds of drafting. They’ve learned from others’ mistakes and some of their own.” - Farva Jafri

Include all the Details 

Section (d) is also one-of-a-kind. As a rider, Uber walks you through what you need to do to initiate arbitration. It includes a thorough instruction manual, which is more than most companies will provide. They tell you what you need to do, which is to file a claim with the AAA, file a demand, and notify Uber’s legal department. They even inform you who will be the arbiter. 

It explicitly states that the driver and passenger bringing uber to arbitration must meet and negotiate which arbitrator they want to engage, and if they can’t agree on someone, AAA will appoint one. All these details aren’t typically seen in terms of use. That’s a product of having gone wrong numerous times, watched other companies go wrong, and adapting.

Draft User-friendly Terms

Uber is trying to avoid an argument that it would be too prohibitive to arbitrate the case in Maine, Florida or New York and only arbitrate a case in California as it makes things a lot more difficult.

“The whole point of the location procedure was to avoid arguments that would be prohibitive. Uber will not drag you to California because they acknowledge how burdensome the arbitration experience is in terms of enforceability.” - Farva Jafri

Keep in mind that these terms of use were written pre-pandemic so everything was happening in person all the time. It’s only in today’s time that arbitration takes a few minutes to get from your bed to your desk and to an arbitration proceeding. 

Final Thoughts on Uber’s Terms of Use

Execution on the app is poor, which is why a Massachusetts judge decided against Uber in the case we previously discussed. It was ruled that just because Uber has everything correct in the arbitration clause does not mean that its users consent to be bound by it. Another thing that Uber did well was to require the person filing the case to pay all of the filing fees. It is a deterrent to the user, especially if they are unfamiliar with arbitration and are unaware of how expensive it can be.

“Understand that courts are always going to look at you with a little side-eye if you're a big corporation and will want to protect the other guy.” - Farva Jafri

The tech team was implementing the app but legal was drafting terms of use so there’s a disconnect between that “I agree” button but it could have also been a lack of foresight. It’s shooting in the dark here. If they knew they had to put a button there, they would have.

Practical Tips

To make your arbitration clauses enforceable don’t write your terms of use for the state you’re in. If you’re involved in multi or interstate commerce, for example, if you’re in Texas, which is less consumer-friendly than Massachusetts, the most consumer-friendly state in America – Recognize that. 

Even though it’s a ridiculous argument that you’re just adding the “I agree” button, it suddenly means a person will read every single word in the terms of use. Just keep in mind that the little and technical things included in the app will help you succeed and overcome some of these challenges in the future.

Download K-Notes Now

Show Notes:

In this episode of Contract Teardown from Law Insider, contract lawyer and litigator Farva Jafri tears down the arbitration clause in Uber’s terms of service. Uber has put a lot of care into covering the little details in their arbitration clause, but some states have said that’s still not enough, so let’s tear it down.

THE CONTRACT: Uber’s Terms of Use

THE GUEST: Farva Jafri is a few things: a lawyer, an alternative home-builder, but most importantly, a zealous advocate for her clients. She has owned and operated legal funding, tech and real estate businesses. Jafri is also a visiting professor of business at universities. She can be reached on LinkedIn or through email at farva@jafrilawfirm.com.

THE HOST: Mike Whelan is the author of Lawyer Forward: Finding Your Place in the Future of Law and host of the Lawyer Forward community. Learn more about his work for attorneys at www.lawyerforward.com.

If you are interested in being a guest on Contract Teardown, please email us at community@lawinsider.com.

Interview Transcript

Mike Whelan [00:00:26] Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Contract Teardown Show from Law Insider. I’m Mike Whalen. The purpose in the show is exactly what it sounds like. We take contracts, we beat them up. We are mean to them, we insult them and their families, and then we’re nice to them. At the end, we lift them up a little bit emotionally. I hang out with smart friends like Farva Jafri Farva, How are you today?

Farva Jafri [00:00:46] I’m well, how are you?

Mike Whelan [00:00:48] Doing pretty good. I like that. You say well, you say it appropriately, and I’m just not going to do that because I know how to use whom in a sentence. But I will never do it by God. I will not do it. These are the standards we live by. Today, speaking a nerd stuff, we are looking at a contract —  only people like us will have a fight about whom — but we’re looking at contracts as we do on the show. Today, we are looking at this document. This is the terms of use for Uber. For being a rider, I believe. Is that is that right, Farva?

Farva Jafri [00:01:19] That’s correct.

Mike Whelan [00:01:19] OK. So we’re looking at this document before we get started, Farva, tell me what this thing is. When are we going to run into it as a lawyer? When might we draft something like this? What is this document?

Farva Jafri [00:01:29] So this is a terms of use for Uber, the rideshare app. As an attorney, if you are helping a new company get started or helping a company revise any sort of terms of use that might be on their website or on an app. This is something that you’ll probably be drafting.

Mike Whelan [00:01:45] Yeah, it’s a common, pretty common click through-y agreement and I said, click through on purpose. We’ll talk about that later. But before we get to that Farva, tell me about you, what’s your background? What brings you to this kind of document?

Farva Jafri [00:01:57] So I’m a contract lawyer, I’m based in New York, I practice in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maine, so I review different types of contracts for small businesses, for larger businesses, mid-sized businesses, typically tech companies, but sometimes just small businesses as well. So that’s me

Mike Whelan [00:02:16] Awesome, and you do some litigating if I am,.

Farva Jafri [00:02:19] Yes, I am.

Mike Whelan [00:02:20] So that’s sort of the a bit the interesting take that we’re we’re going to pull on this because we’re going to look at this as a document and you’re going to give some critique of this thing as a document, but also in the context of some litigation that went on in Massachusetts that we’re going to talk a little bit about. Before we get to that story, let’s start with the beginning of this thing and some big bolded words about arbitration. How do you feel about this early? Let’s get it out of the way you’re waiving your right to a normal trial. Good practice?

Farva Jafri [00:02:50] I would say for the company, it’s a good practice and also sort of for the consumer, it’s a good practice as well because you know what you’re getting right up front. I don’t know how effective it is and every single court, but they do. Uber does make a really big deal out of the fact that you are signing up for binding arbitration, whether you’re a rider or any user of the app. So they have it in the first section and then they go on to it and spend an entire second section on just arbitration alone, which is very unique.

Mike Whelan [00:03:19] Yeah, we’re going to dig into that. Give us the context a little bit. I know we talked a little bit. There’s this trial in Massachusetts will make sure to include an article in the blog post about this that details this this trial. But tell us about what happened in Massachusetts and what it kind of spun on for for this document.

Farva Jafri [00:03:37] So a Massachusetts man who was blind, he tried to get into three different Ubers with his seeing eye dog, and he was rejected from all three Uber cars. So he sued Uber for disability discrimination, and he had to go through arbitration. And when he lost in  arbitration, his lawyers then appealed, and they were able to get in front of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which state court that stated that the the litigant. He did not actually have to go through arbitration. He was not bound by arbitration because just because there’s a terms of service available on the app, he didn’t have to take any sort of affirmative action to agree to those terms of services and therefore he was not bound by them.

Mike Whelan [00:04:22] Yeah, and they make a really interesting comparison to the drivers, right? Because famously, Uber is really purposeful about making sure everybody knows that the drivers are not employees, they are contractors. And so, you know, they point out in in that ruling that the drivers have to push two buttons to say, I get it, I really get it. But for the passengers, they just said no and I, I would point people to the very top of this thing. The second paragraph says by accessing or using the services, you confirm your agreement to be bound by these terms. If you do not agree, don’t use the services. For you,  you know, when you’re dealing with looking at contracts like this or even drafting contracts like this, what do you feel about these sort of deemed to have accepted things? It seems like sometimes there’s a use for that kind of thing, right? Like if you’re doing, I don’t know if you’re if you’re accepting delivery of a product, for example, the idea that everybody is going to stand around and read documents not realistic. When might you use this kind of deemed to have read language versus not?

Farva Jafri [00:05:26] Well, if you remember in law school, for most of us, we really saw that sort of contract exchange early on that that oral contract exchange, basically, you can accept an offer by committing some sort of overt act. So in some cases, that totally makes sense. So if I call my plumber and I tell my plumber, Hey, I’ve got a broken pipe here or my bathroom is not working, he’s not going to send over a document for me to review and sign. He’s just going to come over and perform the service and basically him performing the service was him accepting the agreement and me promising to pay him something. However, in this case in Uber, I don’t think the same thing applies here, and I don’t know how effective it would be for many technology companies. It’s just very there’s a lot of legalese that go into these documents. The the terms you’re agreeing to are not exactly straightforward. So I don’t think that it’s going to —  it really works for Uber to say if you get in one of these cars of a third party provider, that means that you agree to all of our terms in service terms of service. I think it’s important that they keep making that distinction, that drivers are these third parties. But you agree to everything that we’re telling you by getting into those cars. It doesn’t really make sense. Yeah.

Mike Whelan [00:06:38] And I’m sort of thinking like a reasonableness standard, like you’re using a technology that the whole interface is you’re playing with the technology. Put one more button in there. How hard is this? But you know, the case really hinged on arbitration. This is such a hotly contested issue, so I want to dig into. You, the arbitration section of this document, lead me into that. Tell me about the arbitration section, the scope of it, the breadth of it. How do you feel about it? What do you think about this arbitration section?

Farva Jafri [00:07:07] It’s a very in-depth and broad arbitration agreement that comes right in the front of the terms of use is section number two. It’s prefaced in section number one. So you know it’s coming, and it basically tells you all the ways in which you’re waiving your right to go to trial. So it tells you that by using this app and by agreeing to these terms of use, you’re not going to be entitled to a trial by jury. You have to bring arbitration. And basically, there’s only a few circumstances in which you can go to trial and you can actually bring this in a court of law right along. The short of it is really that you’re stuck in arbitration, which involves a lot of things, including heavy fees.

Mike Whelan [00:07:46] Yeah. So I assume A sort of is a setting, you’re in arbitration as kind of the default background thing and then B talks about exceptions to the arbitration. Tell me about A and B the relationship and what do you think about the language and B in terms of exceptions?

Farva Jafri [00:08:01] So in a basically it’s very it seems like it’s very broad. It says, you know, any dispute, any claim or controversy in any way that’s arising out of these terms or any previous versions, you have to bring those claims in arbitration. So section one is actually extremely broad. But and section one is also where they tell you that you’re waiving the right to a trial by jury. It also tells you that you can’t be a member of any sort of class action. Section two is slightly different, so Section two talks about the exceptions to the arbitration, and I think this is actually drafted pretty well. It basically talks about the three singular cases where you can sidestep arbitration and you can go into litigation so you can go to any court that’s in your state. They’re not even telling you you have to come to California. They’re saying that if you have a small claim, if you have been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, or if you’re seeking injunctive relief, which of course, an arbitrator cannot give to you, that’s only something that a court of law can give to you. Those three circumstances are the only circumstances in which you can go to court. And I think that’s actually very tight and it’s done pretty well.

Mike Whelan [00:09:09] Yeah, I’m wondering. I mean, there’s got to be a story behind why sexual harassment and sexual assault claims are not brought through arbitration. You know, I would assume maybe there’s a legislative there’s there’s a rule somewhere. And one of the states that Uber operates in, I don’t know, is that unusual to carve out something that’s specific in this kind of I mean, to your point, you know, if you’re looking for injunctive relief or if you’re doing small claims, that makes sense. But do you have any idea what the background is on the sexual harassment section?

Farva Jafri [00:09:38] I think the background actually comes from something specifically with Uber. There is a lot of cases, I think early on in the days of Uber, where drivers were sexually assaulting passengers. And so obviously there was the MeToo movement, obviously. So I think that they there was an amended version of Uber’s Terms of Service and in 2017, which is which is the version that’s currently on their website. Right after MeToo, right after a lot of these cases came out about Uber drivers assaulting, you know, women who were getting into these cars. I think that’s when they made an amendment and said, you know, in those cases, you don’t have to take that to binding arbitration that can go into a court of law. It might have been a PR thing. It might have been know terms of a settlement. But it is very interesting that that’s a distinct circumstance.

Mike Whelan [00:10:24] And I remember all those stories. OK, so moving to C, the rule, so A says it’s almost always going to play, B says. Here’s the few cases it doesn’t. C,  we get into the rules and governing law talking about the AAA rules. What do you think about C?

Farva Jafri [00:10:39] So this is very interesting, and I don’t I don’t think I see this in a lot of terms of use, so Section C doesn’t just say that you have to go to arbitration, S.C. says you have to use the American Arbitration Association so you can’t use Jams. You can’t use any other, you know, arbiter. You have to use the American Arbitration Association. So basically, you’re also giving authority to Uber to make to to make that arbitrator the final decision maker of the claims. And also, there’s nothing in here in Section C about state or federal law. They don’t say, Oh, you know, all applicable federal and state laws are going to apply. They specifically say that the Federal Arbitration Act is what’s going to govern the interpretation and the enforcement of the proceedings. So it’s actually very specific. Some of these, some of these bigger companies, they’ll try to say, Oh, like all these different laws are going to apply to Uber was actually very specific, which which kind of indicates to me that they’ve gone through many rounds of drafting the terms of use. And also they’ve seen where all these other companies, like Amazon, have gone wrong. So I think they’ve actually learned from other people’s mistakes and probably some of their own mistakes.

Mike Whelan [00:11:48] Yeah, I mean, you would know this better than I do, but I’m imagining, you know, sometimes you can tell in an agreement. Did outside counsel write this or that in-house counsel write this right? The outside counsel will just cover every basis it’s in like another language. But when in-house counsel does it, you can almost see the stories coming out of it, right? You can see that we tried this, it didn’t work. We did something else. And you get these very specific instances. And I’m getting the vibe from this like this has been well and thoroughly reviewed. Take us down to D again. This is more of the process stuff. Yeah, for if you decide to go to arbitration.

Farva Jafri [00:12:26] Right. So this is actually also very unique. They basically walk you as the writer through what you have to do to start arbitration. They give you an instruction manual in their terms of use and not through instruction manual, but it’s more than most companies will give you. So they tell you what you have to do, which is basically send in a claim to the to the AAA. You have to file a demand and then you also have to notify the legal department at Uber. So they actually walk you through the stuff and they even tell you who the arbitrator is going to be if they indicate that the arbitrator will be some kind of retired judge, an attorney licensed to practice law in the state. Arbitration is occurring, and it also says that the two of you Uber and the passenger, the rider who is suing, are bringing Uber to arbitration. You will have a meet and confer and discuss which arbitrator you want to use. If you can’t figure out somebody, then the AAA is going to appoint an arbitrator. All that kind of detail that isn’t typically in a terms of use. So I think that’s also a product of having gotten it wrong many times, seeing other companies get it wrong many times and adapting.

Mike Whelan [00:13:34] Yeah. E! It talks about location and procedure. And I’m thinking about even down in seven. We talked about this a little bit beforehand that, you know, they really seem to be trying to get near you. What, what do you think about the location and procedure portion in E?

Farva Jafri [00:13:49] Well, I think that they’re trying to avoid an argument that it would be too prohibitive to be arbitrate your case in if you’re in Maine or if you’re in New York or if you’re in Florida and try to arbitrate a case in California, it makes things a lot more difficult and you have to keep in mind that the terms of use was written. I think that this version is from 2017, so it’s before COVID 19. So everybody was doing everything in person all the time, for the most part. It’s only in today’s economy where the arbitration takes just a few minutes to get out from your your, your bed to your desk and to get on an arbitration proceeding. But that didn’t exist back then. So I think the whole point of the location and procedure was to avoid any arguments that it would be prohibitive. Basically, Uber is admitting that there are not going to try to drag you out to California. They’ll come to you.

Mike Whelan [00:14:44] Yeah, yeah. I mean, we’ll talk about this a little bit, but we had done a previous episode about Amazon local drivers and how that impacted an arbitration clause. Just an interesting thing how they they really seem to think about how burdensome is the arbitration experience in terms of enforceability in a court. But before we get to that big picture, I just wanted to ask you, is there anything else that you wanted to bring up about this particular document and how they handle arbitration? It sounds like you like it. You think this is pretty good, pretty good practice.

Farva Jafri [00:15:13] Yeah, for the most part, I think it’s it’s good. But the way that it was executed or the way it’s been executed in the app was poor. And that’s why the Massachusetts court had ruled against Uber in that case and said, You know, even though you have everything right in your arbitration clause, it doesn’t mean that you’re your users are actually agreeing to this to be bound by this. I think the other thing that Uber did pretty well was that it it spells out that you have to pay all of these filing fees. I mean, it’s sort of a deterrent to the user, especially if they’re not really used to or they’re not accustomed to arbitration and they don’t understand how expensive it can be and that you’re paying a judge by the hour or you’re paying the jams or the staff by the hour. But they do tell you that explicitly and this agreement that you’re going to be paying and responsible for all these different fees.

Mike Whelan [00:16:07] Hmm. I mean, as a practical matter, like stepping back and thinking about the bigger picture of drafting arbitration clauses and trying to get them to freakin work like it seems like every time I have a conversation with somebody about arbitration clauses in this context, it it didn’t work. And obviously, that’s the only time it sort of comes into our into our view. But I assume the majority of arbitration cases, I mean, the fact that this is one of few that then went through a state court and it actually worked. I assume there are very few people who could actually afford to go chase it down an arbitration. And then when that doesn’t work, let’s go through the state court. I assume that this case was probably funded in some, you know, to make an example out of this thing. If I’m the company and I want arbitration to work, it sounds like Uber did an awful lot to make this thing work. And if the only criticism that the court had was, hey, make people push some buttons as a functional matter for them to have had to push the button, that probably wouldn’t have changed the actual notice to this person, either. I feel a little bit like clients, you know, companies that are trying to make these things enforceable. It’s a bit of a blind jumping through hoops. What what advice would you have for lawyers who are drafting these kinds of things to make sure that they’re actually enforceable? If this is the way that everybody wants to handle these kinds of disputes?

Farva Jafri [00:17:29] I would say, don’t write for this. Don’t write your terms of use for the state you’re in. If you’re a multi, if you do interstate commerce at all and you’re in Texas, which is less clear or, you know, less consumer friendly than Massachusetts, which is probably the most consumer friendly state in America. You know, understand that, right? Understand that courts are always going to be looking at you, you know, with a little side eye, right? They’re going to be a little skeptical of you if you’re a big corporation and they’re going to really want to protect the little guy. So even though it is kind of a ridiculous argument that you’re just adding, and I agree button and all of a sudden that means, you know, this person is going to read every single word that’s in the terms of use. Just keep in mind that the little things and the little technical things that you put in your app are going to make, they’re going to make you more successful and able to overcome some of these challenges in the future. But I think whoever was writing the terms of use or who was just, you know, maybe, maybe tech was not talking to legal in the sense, right? So tech was the one who implemented the app for Uber, but legal was the one who drafted the terms of use. So I can see how maybe. There was a disconnect between adding that I agree button, but also it could have just been a lack of foresight because as you said, it’s it’s sort of shooting in the dark here. We don’t really know what these tech companies have to do. Yeah, if

Mike Whelan [00:19:00] they had thought it, all we have to do is put a button on there, they would have absolutely put a button on their right. That wouldn’t have been hard. I’m again, I’m sort of thinking of the big picture context of if you I assume that these companies are looking at, OK, if we go through regular state court for every dispute across 50 states and wherever else we are, then here’s all the litigation we’re going to have to deal with. And here are the costs of that litigation vs. OK. Every once in a while, one is going to have to come up. We’re going to have to clean up the document. I’m assuming that cost, you know, analysis between the two. It is probably still cheaper for them to keep editing this dang thing, to try to get it right and check all the all the boxes.

Farva Jafri [00:19:42] Absolutely. I mean, they have to, I think, you know, in order to avoid the same problem twice. I mean, this is a public company now. So I mean, shareholders are going to be pretty angry if they make a mistake and then they don’t clean it up in, how’s that legal? I mean, at least a lot of people selling off the stock.

Mike Whelan [00:19:57] Yeah. Maybe just for expectation setting. If you’re going to tell your client you’re going to incorporate arbitration, you better warn them that you’re going to have to do some edits because you’ve got to get the homes in there, right? And the heretofore is and everybody needs those in the right order. Well, thank you for joining us. For people who want to learn more about your practice in New York and what you do for companies, what’s the best way to reach out to you?

Farva Jafri [00:20:19] Email is the best way I’m at Farva@Jafrilawfirm.com.

Mike Whelan [00:20:23] Awesome. Will include far as contact information, as well as a link to this particular document and some of the stuff about the news, stories and the the case that had happened before. That will all be at lawinsider.com/resources. And if you want to be a guest on the Contract Teardown show and help us beat up some documents in a super mean way. Just email us. We are at Community@LawInsider.com. Thank you again.


Farva Jafri
Lawyer, Entrepreneur
Mike Whelan
Chief Community Officer

You may also like

College Athlete Deals vs Influencer Agreements (NIL)

In this episode of the Contract Teardown show, sports attorney John Gibson uses an online influencer agreement to explain special rules for college athletes looking to sign brand deals.

Salesforce's Data Processing Agreement (DPA)

Salesforce's Data Processing Agreement (DPA) illustrates the risks associated with data management roles in contracting.