Seems like the put all kinds of weird shit in EULAs that they can use to get out of paying people if they get injured.
It's one particular weird thing - arbitration clauses. They always put in arbitration clauses which say that, if you ever have a dispute with the company, you have to settle it in arbitration rather than in court. It's generally presumed that arbitration will be more favorable to the company.
I personally read it as a cynical commentary on the laissez-faire attitude most people have to the erosion of their rights as what has lead to EULA’s being common place, but you do you.
Obviously. These services hadn't existed forever. Twenty years ago, everyone had a choice, but companies discovered that you could put basically anything in an EULA and people would still click through without reading. Society as a whole accepted this outcome. It reminds me that in ancient times they considered acedia to be a deadly sin.
ETA: While I'm at it.
To me it's stupid that an EULA for a food delivery service also covers the ride-sharing service. These are two distinct things in my mind and one EULA shouldn't cover both of them. In that regard it is similar to the Disney case a few months ago where someone agreeing to the Disney+ EULA signed away their rights when they got injured in a Disney Theme Park.
It sounds like agreeing to the laws of a country if you interact with a company in any way.
Well, it doesn't
really. The EULA is usually "for all [whatever] services" because the company uses the same one, which is obviously their right to do, but agreeing to it for the purpose of food delivery doesn't inherently cover the ride-sharing service — it's just that you have to agree to it for the purposes of the ride-sharing service
in order to use the ride-sharing service at all. You're still thinking about it from the perspective that checking the checkmark is accepting the contract;
using the service or product is accepting the contract.
Basically, the theory that the EULA for the food delivery service covers the ride-sharing service was the
family's argument, since they wanted to invalidate it based on a minor ticking the checkbox (which just isn't how it works.)
And you can tell that the family's lawyer is the type who likes to lie and twist words, since in the article, he makes a completely bullshit comment about the family's Constitutional right to a trial by jury being impaired — but of course, the Constitution only grants you the right to demand a trial by jury for
yourself, against the government. Nobody has the right to demand to inflict a trial by jury on
someone else.