Taxi Firms Use Uber Arbitration Clauses to Push Price-Fixing Case to Arbitration
Taxi companies invoked Uber's arbitration agreements to compel individual arbitration in a price-fixing suit.
Why it matters: Resolving if Uber’s clauses bind third-party taxi companies will shape class action and arbitration strategies in gig economy disputes, vital for legal professionals handling similar cases.
- On September 15, 2026, Curb Mobility, Flywheel Technologies, Creative Mobile Technologies, and ARRO moved to transfer a California price-fixing class action to New York federal court.
- Plaintiff Brendan Kretschmer alleges these taxi companies conspired with Uber to fix prices, using Uber’s app as the platform for the conduct.
- Taxi firms argue they qualify as third-party beneficiaries under Uber’s arbitration agreements, seeking to compel individual arbitration and bar class claims.
- Uber’s terms include arbitration provisions barring class, collective, or representative lawsuits, applicable to NYC taxi drivers using Curb and ARRO platforms.
Taxi companies tied to Uber’s network are using Uber’s arbitration agreements to try to compel individual arbitration in a class-action price-fixing lawsuit. Brendan Kretschmer, the plaintiff, alleges these taxi firms conspired to fix prices through Uber’s app.
On September 15, 2026, Curb Mobility, Flywheel Technologies, Creative Mobile Technologies, and ARRO asked a federal court to change the case venue from California to New York. They claim Uber’s arbitration clauses extend to them as third-party beneficiaries, meaning they can enforce these clauses even though they are not signatories.
Uber’s General Terms of Use impose individual arbitration requirements and prohibit users from filing class, collective, or representative lawsuits against Uber. Additionally, Uber's Terms for NYC taxi drivers using Curb and ARRO also contain similar arbitration and class action waiver provisions.
Though Uber is not a defendant here, attorney John Papianou representing the taxi companies told the court they seek transfer to what they consider the "most appropriate forum," emphasizing arbitration’s streamlined dispute resolution.
Meanwhile, plaintiff attorney Stephen Lagos warns that forcing arbitration under Uber’s agreements could limit class members’ ability to pursue relief in court.
The legal debate revolves around whether these taxi firms are third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce Uber’s arbitration agreements. A third-party beneficiary is a non-signatory who benefits from, and can enforce, a contract between other parties.
The Third Circuit’s 2023 ruling in Singh v. Uber Technologies upheld Uber’s right to require individual arbitration by its drivers. But extending this to third-party taxi companies is less settled and carries significant implications for arbitration’s reach in gig economy cases.
The upcoming court decision will guide whether arbitration agreements can bind related but non-signatory companies, affecting how class claims are managed, and shaping legal strategies for litigations involving multi-party, platform-based agreements.
By the numbers:
- September 15, 2026 — Date taxi companies filed motion to transfer venue
- 2023 — Year Third Circuit upheld Uber arbitration in Singh v. Uber Technologies
- 4 — Number of taxi companies jointly seeking arbitration enforcement
Yes, but: While Uber’s agreements prohibit class actions, whether unrelated taxi firms qualify as enforceable third-party beneficiaries remains legally unsettled and fact-dependent.
What's next: The court will soon decide whether to compel arbitration under Uber’s agreements that include these taxi firms, affecting future class-action viability in gig economy disputes.