Too little money to be a deterrent: customers of the two class actions against Uber Eats have made their dissatisfaction known by opposing the negotiated financial settlement in order to have it broken.
This case raises a series of questions about out-of-court settlements of class actions brought for violations of consumer rights.
The two class actions accuse Uber Eats of commercial practices deemed unacceptable. The result should benefit all those who have placed orders with this system, who are then considered “members” of the class actions. They would be nearly 2 million in Quebec.
They criticize the multinational for adding costs at the very end of the process, such as delivery costs that were never clearly indicated before going to checkout. In addition, as part of its “two for one” offers, the 10% service charge was applied before the price was reduced by half, another practice denounced.
After negotiations, the lawyers for the members of the class action and those of Uber Eats reached an out-of-court settlement for the sum of $200,000, distributed as follows: $63,500 to pay the lawyers who conducted the litigation , $81,900 For the Collective Action Assistance Fund — which will be able to use this money to support others — and $55,000 to be distributed to five charities.
In short, Uber Eats users will not receive a penny.
The terms of this settlement irritated more than one.
On Friday, the day Superior Court Judge Pierre Gagnon was to approve — or not — the settlement as negotiated, he had to listen to the objections of several people who were offended by the terms of the agreement.
A consumer, incidentally also a lawyer who litigates class actions, Ms.and Erika Provencher, said she was “shocked” that so little money went to the members of the group, and as much to the lawyers.
Another lawyer and law professor at Lakehead University, Phil Lord, told the judge that he had seen many flawed class action settlements in his life but found this one “particularly problematic.”
The lawyer for Uber Eats had argued that handing over 14 cents or 28 cents to each user would serve no purpose and that it was better to give the money to charities. This is a usual way of proceeding, when the sums to be distributed are not enormous and the costs of returning the money would be very high.
Even if it were only $1 per order, that wouldn’t be a lot per person, but the total would be higher, and it would send a message to Uber — and other companies like it — not to use such commercial practices, argued another member of the group, Mathieu Atallah, a law student from the University of Montreal who realized his opposition to the settlement as part of a course.
If initially the $55,000 was to be delivered by discount coupons — another reason that shocked opponents — Uber Eats attorney Ms.and François Giroux, said Friday that the sum would be distributed in cash.
Counsel for the members of both actions, Mr.and Jimmy Lambert, told the judge that he had accepted this settlement – which is moreover without admission of liability on the part of Uber Eats – because he is of the opinion that the law is not fixed on the questions raised in the appeal. . Without case law and without precedent on a similar case, the case was far from a foregone conclusion, and he judged that it was in the best interest of the members to settle.
According to him, the legal question was: is it possible to obtain the property at the displayed price? If so, there is no cause. And in the case of Uber Eats, the displayed price is available if you pick up the order at the counter.
“For me, the settlement was the thing to do,” Lambert said.
Since then, Uber Eats has changed its practices and the two problems underlying the class actions have been resolved, the lawyers told the judge. As they are often brought hoping for a change, this objective is now fulfilled here, added Mand Giroux.
The judge took the case under advisement and will render his judgment at a later date.