> I suspect that had it gone through the regular courts, Uber would have won.
Based on what, exactly? Judging by the fact that Uber preemptively offered a $10m settlement, it seems like they did not exactly believe that they had a strong case.
Weird to name the company in the headline, but wait until the 8th paragraph to name the actual perpetrator. Uber is mentioned by name 15x, while the driver's name is mentioned only 2x (and no picture of the driver is included).
I'm surprised the title isn't "Uber ordered to pay $40m to family of woman killed after being left on highway", to omit the perpetrator entirely.
A discussion came up on HN recently related to forced arbitration. This is one example where the company actually lost.
I suspect that had it gone through the regular courts, Uber would have won.
> I suspect that had it gone through the regular courts, Uber would have won.
Based on what, exactly? Judging by the fact that Uber preemptively offered a $10m settlement, it seems like they did not exactly believe that they had a strong case.
The $10M wasn't because they'd think they'd lose. It was to silence them. It was contingent on them not speaking about it.
Weird to name the company in the headline, but wait until the 8th paragraph to name the actual perpetrator. Uber is mentioned by name 15x, while the driver's name is mentioned only 2x (and no picture of the driver is included).
I'm surprised the title isn't "Uber ordered to pay $40m to family of woman killed after being left on highway", to omit the perpetrator entirely.