The agreement negotiated between Uber Eats and the law firm Lambert last November did not hold up in court. Instead, it led to the creation of a permanent student committee that will oversee such agreements from now on.
Posted at 8:00 a.m.
In a decision released Monday, Superior Court Judge Pierre-C. Gagnon has indeed sided with a group of law students from the University of Montreal who challenged this settlement of $ 200,000 to close a class action against Uber Eats and its overcharging practices.
The five law students and their coordinator, Marie-Ève Maillé, denounced, among other things, the fees of $63,500 obtained by the lawyers in this agreement “which does nothing for the members”, she had declared to The Press. On March 18, during the Superior Court hearing on this settlement, they were joined in their crusade by two lawyers who are also clients of Uber Eats, Mr.and Phil Lord and M.and Erika Provencher.
In addition to fees of $63,500, the agreement negotiated last November with Uber Eats provided for a payment of $81,900 to the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives (FAAC), as well as $55,000 paid in Uber credits. to charities chosen by the American company. On this last point, we learn in the most recent court decision, Uber finally agreed to pay “unconditional” payments of $11,000, rather than credits, to five well-known Quebec organizations.
PHOTO KACPER PEMPEL, REUTERS ARCHIVES
A man delivers an Uber Eats order to workers at a bakery.
We also have, for the first time, an estimate of the number of Quebecers who would be affected by Uber Eats’ overcharging practices, which earned it two class action requests filed in December 2020 and July 2021. has indeed specified to have sent 1.9 million emails in connection with these two cases.
“Low amount”
The lawyer who led this case, Mr.and Jimmy Ernst Jr Laguë-Lambert, argued before the judge that the $200,000 settlement negotiated last November was “reasonable”, insofar as the case law was not clear in this area and “that it was not worth no need to pay just a few cents to each member,” reads Judge Gagnon’s decision.
This was clearly not the opinion of the judge, who endorsed five arguments raised by opponents of the agreement.
The judge notably noted the “low pecuniary amount” given the number of consumers concerned and the “inappropriate imbalance” in the distribution of the sums. More generally, he denounces “settlement agreements which, after all, only really benefit the class lawyer”.
In interview with The PressMand Laguë-Lambert denies having charged exaggerated fees, his firm having devoted 170 hours to this file. “As I pleaded, that doesn’t even give us our hourly rate. It’s much more complex, a case that has no precedents […] Those who will follow will be able to lean on our work. »
The two collective action requests are therefore referred to the court, where a judge will first have to authorize them. For the coordinator of the group of students from the University of Montreal, Marie-Ève Maillé, “the best argument before the court was still the mediocrity of the agreement”.
“It made our job easier. It’s unusual that bad agreements like this are presented, but we don’t always have a group of people who stand up and say they have the time and the energy to challenge them. »
Learn on the job
Marie-Ève Maillé and the other members of the group enjoyed the experience so much that they founded a student committee at the Université de Montréal on class actions, whose mission will be to identify and challenge this type of settlement. “We see it as an opportunity, each time there is a regulation, to evaluate it well, to make sure that the members find their account in it. […] There was still a certain arrogance on the part of the parties to submit this agreement. Maybe it will serve as an electric shock to invite them to proceed differently in the future. »
“We made a decision that seemed to us the best for the members, reiterated Mand Laguë-Lambert, who intends to continue to pilot the two class action claims. Under the current state of the law, there is no similar precedent. »