AllYouCanTech

Court Decides in Favor of Uber, Rejecting Crash Victims’ Appeal to Continue Case in Court Rather Than in Arbitration

### Uber Arbitration Case: New Jersey Court Upholds Arbitration Clause in Ride-Sharing Dispute

In a recent judicial outcome, a New Jersey appellate court determined that a married couple is barred from suing Uber for serious injuries they suffered in a 2022 car crash because of a mandatory arbitration clause found in Uber’s terms of service. This case, which has received considerable attention, underscores the increasing legal challenges associated with arbitration agreements in the digital era, especially within ride-sharing platforms like Uber.

#### The Incident and Legal Dispute

The plaintiffs, Georgia and John McGinty, were involved in a significant car accident on March 31, 2022, while seated in the back of an Uber car. Court documents reveal that the Uber driver, Jia Wen Zheng, disregarded a red light, leading to a crash that resulted in severe injuries for both Georgia and John. Georgia suffered multiple fractures, including injuries to her spine and ribs, requiring several surgical procedures. John experienced fractures in his sternum and left arm, also necessitating surgery. The couple incurred substantial medical debts and continues to need ongoing care.

After the incident, the McGintys aimed to file a lawsuit against Uber for damages. However, Uber cited its terms of service, which encompass a mandatory arbitration clause, asserting that the couple had consented to resolve any disputes via arbitration instead of litigation.

#### The Arbitration Clause: A Legal Hurdle

The core of the legal conflict centered on Uber’s arbitration clause, embedded within its terms of service. Arbitration clauses are prevalent in numerous service contracts, commonly mandating users to settle disputes outside of court, often through a private arbitrator. These clauses aim to simplify dispute resolution and alleviate pressure on the judicial system, but they also restrict users’ ability to pursue claims through conventional legal avenues, including jury trials.

In this instance, the McGintys contended that they were not informed of their waiver of the right to sue Uber in court. They argued that their 12-year-old daughter had used Georgia’s phone to accept Uber’s revised terms while ordering food on Uber Eats. The couple maintained that the arbitration clause was not clearly articulated and that their daughter, being a minor, did not possess the legal capacity to consent to such terms on their behalf.

#### Lower Court Ruling and Appeal

Initially, a lower court in New Jersey ruled in favor of the McGintys, rejecting Uber’s request to enforce arbitration. The court determined that Uber’s revised terms were overly ambiguous and did not adequately inform users that they were waiving their right to seek legal recourse in court. Specifically, the court pointed out that the latest version of Uber’s terms lacked a direct mention of a waiver of the right to a jury trial, which had been present in earlier iterations of the agreement.

Nonetheless, Uber contested the ruling, arguing that the arbitration clause remained valid despite the newer terms being less precise. The company also argued that Georgia McGinty had accepted the terms on several occasions, initially in 2015 when she created her Uber account and again in 2021 with the updated terms.

#### Appellate Court Ruling: Arbitration Clause Upheld

On September 20, 2024, a three-judge panel from the New Jersey Superior Court’s appellate division overturned the lower court’s ruling, siding with Uber. The appellate court asserted that Uber’s arbitration clause was legitimate and enforceable, irrespective of whether Georgia or her daughter had consented to the most recent terms.

The court highlighted that Uber’s terms explicitly indicated that disputes would be resolved through arbitration “and not in a court of law,” which the judges interpreted as a clear indication of the waiver of the right to pursue claims in court. Although the updated terms did not overtly mention a jury trial waiver, the court concluded that “magic words” were not necessary for the enforceability of the arbitration clause.

The judges also addressed the question of whether Georgia’s daughter, being a minor, could lawfully agree to the terms. The court determined that this issue should be resolved by an arbitrator, rather than the court, as the arbitration agreement delegated such matters to arbitration.

#### Broader Implications

The McGinty case is part of a wider trend. Uber has faced similar legal disputes in other jurisdictions, including a recent instance in Massachusetts where the state’s Supreme Judicial Court upheld Uber’s arbitration agreement in a case involving a passenger left paralyzed from an accident. In that situation, the court determined that Uber’s “clickwrap” agreement, compelling users to click a box to accept the terms of service, adequately notified them of the existence of the arbitration clause.

These cases highlight the increasing prevalence of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly within the technology and gig economy sectors. Companies such as Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb frequently incorporate such clauses into their terms of service, often mandating user agreement before access to the platform is granted. While arbitration can provide a more expedient resolution method,

CEO Charged with Head of “Health Care Terrorists” Initiates Legal Action Against Senators After Contempt of Congress Allegations

### The Dispute Involving Steward Health Care CEO Ralph de la Torre: A Legal Clash with the Senate

In an unexpected development, Ralph de la Torre, the CEO of the now-defunct **Steward Health Care System**, finds himself in a legal conflict with the U.S. Senate. De la Torre is facing accusations of severe mismanagement that contributed to the failure of his hospital network and is now suing the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) after being deemed in contempt of Congress for not attending a hearing. This situation has garnered considerable attention, as it raises questions about corporate responsibility, patient welfare, and the boundaries of constitutional rights when confronted with congressional subpoenas.

### Steward Health Care: From Growth to Insolvency

Once a key player in the healthcare realm, Steward Health Care System managed over 30 hospitals across eight states. However, in May 2024, the organization declared bankruptcy, resulting in significant financial devastation and declining healthcare services. The Senate HELP committee, chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has been probing the company’s downfall, primarily examining how management choices influenced patient care and the hospitals’ financial health.

The committee asserts that de la Torre and other executives at Steward placed their personal profits above the welfare of patients and healthcare staff. Findings from the investigation indicate that the executives sold off hospital assets, stripped facilities of vital resources, and rendered them financially unstable. Such mismanagement has allegedly resulted in preventable fatalities, closures of hospital units, and layoffs of countless healthcare personnel. A physician from Louisiana characterized the environment in a Steward-run hospital as comparable to “third-world medicine,” while a local legislator labeled the executives as “health care terrorists.”

### The Senate Subpoena and de la Torre’s Absence

In July 2024, the Senate HELP committee issued an uncommon subpoena compelling de la Torre to provide testimony regarding the downfall of Steward Health Care. The committee aimed to interrogate him about the financial choices that purportedly contributed to the system’s failure and its repercussions on patient care. De la Torre initially consented to attend the hearing, set for September 12, 2024. Nevertheless, merely one week before the scheduled hearing, he withdrew, citing legal issues concerning the bankruptcy and invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Despite his assertions, the Senate committee dismissed de la Torre’s reasoning, arguing that there were still pertinent subjects he could address without breaching any court directives. They contended that his Fifth Amendment rights did not exempt him from appearing before Congress when subpoenaed. When de la Torre did not appear, the Senate unanimously voted to impose contempt charges, paving the way for a legal confrontation.

### De la Torre’s Lawsuit: A “Media Spectacle”?

On Monday, de la Torre heightened the tension by initiating a federal lawsuit against the Senate HELP committee. In his lawsuit, he alleges that the committee infringed upon his constitutional rights by attempting to “pillory and crucify him as a detestable criminal” in what he described as a “media spectacle.” The lawsuit claims that the Senate’s conduct aimed to publicly disgrace him and that the hearing transformed into a venue for personal derogations rather than a genuine investigation into the company’s bankruptcy.

De la Torre’s attorneys argue that had he participated in the hearing, he would have been compelled to defend himself against such claims, effectively renouncing his Fifth Amendment protections. The lawsuit seeks to annul the Senate’s subpoena, block the contempt charges, and assert that the committee violated his constitutional rights.

### The Financial Irregularities

The Senate HELP committee’s investigation has unveiled substantial financial irregularities within Steward Health Care. While the hospitals under de la Torre’s oversight struggled to deliver fundamental care, the CEO and his associates reportedly earned millions in personal profits. Documentation reveals that de la Torre accrued at least **$250 million** in recent years and purchased a **190-foot yacht** for **$40 million**. Furthermore, Steward Health Care owned two private jets valued at a total of **$95 million**.

These disclosures have intensified public outrage, as communities affected by hospital shutdowns and worsening conditions contend with the fallout from Steward’s fiscal mismanagement. In a particularly distressing incident, nurses at a Massachusetts hospital were compelled to place the remains of infants in cardboard shipping containers because the company had neglected to pay a supplier for appropriate bereavement boxes.

### Legal Experts Share Their Perspectives

De la Torre’s lawsuit has been met with doubt from legal professionals. **Stan M. Brand**, an attorney who previously represented former Trump White House official Peter Navarro in a contempt of Congress matter, characterized the lawsuit as a “desperate move.” Brand informed the **Boston Globe** that de la Torre’s case has “minimal—if any—chance of success.”

Brand emphasized that courts have

Researchers Discover Cannibalized Remnants of Crew Member from Doomed Franklin Expedition

### The Heartbreaking Outcome of Captain Sir John Franklin’s Expedition: Fresh DNA Findings Illuminate Cannibalism and Existence

In a remarkable breakthrough, researchers from the University of Waterloo have pinpointed a member of the ill-fated team associated with Captain Sir John Franklin’s 1845 Arctic mission, which aimed to navigate the elusive Northwest Passage. A recent investigation featured in the *Journal of Archaeological Science* reveals that DNA analysis has validated that a tooth retrieved from a jawbone at one of the expedition’s archaeological locations belonged to Captain James Fitzjames of the HMS *Erebus*. The remains exhibit unmistakable evidence of cannibalism, supporting early Inuit narratives about the crew’s dire battle for survival.

This novel evidence introduces a chilling chapter to the sorrowful tale of Franklin’s expedition, which has intrigued historians, archaeologists, and the general public for over 170 years. The expedition’s two vessels, the HMS *Erebus* and HMS *Terror*, became trapped in ice within the Victoria Strait, leading to the death of all 129 crew members. The enigma surrounding their fate has inspired a multitude of books, films, and even Dan Simmons’ 2007 horror novel, *The Terror*, which was subsequently adapted into an AMC television series in 2018.

#### Overview of the Franklin Expedition

Captain Sir John Franklin’s expedition set off on May 19, 1845, with the ambition of unveiling the Northwest Passage—a maritime pathway through the Arctic linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The crew was last spotted in July 1845 in Baffin Bay by the leaders of two whaling vessels. After that, the expedition disappeared without a trace, leaving behind only bits of evidence that would gradually be uncovered over the subsequent century and a half.

The crew weathered the winter of 1845–1846 on Beechey Island, where the graves of three crew members were later unearthed. When the ice melted, the vessels entered the Victoria Strait, only to be ensnared by ice near King William Island in September 1846. According to a note signed by Fitzjames in April 1848, Franklin passed away on June 11, 1847. Following Franklin’s death, Fitzjames took command of the remaining 105 survivors, who endeavored to trek back to civilization. Regrettably, none of them succeeded.

#### Inuit Testimonies and Initial Search Attempts

For many years, the fate of the Franklin expedition remained an enigma. It wasn’t until 1854 that indigenous Inuit provided vital information to Scottish explorer John Rae. They recounted witnessing approximately 40 men hauling a ship’s boat on a sledge along the southern coastline of King William Island. The following year, several corpses were found near the entrance of the Back River. A subsequent search in 1859 uncovered additional bodies and one of the ships’ boats, still resting on a sledge, about 80 kilometers south of the initial site, now identified as Erebus Bay. More remains were discovered in 1861, merely two kilometers away.

Despite these findings, the complete narrative of the expedition remained elusive. It wasn’t until the 1990s that archaeologists reidentified these sites, designated NgLj-3 and NgLj-2, and initiated the process of reconstructing the harrowing events of the crew’s final hours.

#### DNA Research and Fitzjames’ Identification

The latest investigation is part of a sustained initiative to identify the remains of Franklin’s crew through DNA analysis. Researchers have been comparing genetic profiles from archaeological specimens—bones, teeth, and hair—with samples collected from the descendants of the expedition members. So far, 46 archaeological samples from King William Island have been genetically profiled, and 25 descendants have submitted cheek swab samples for analysis.

In 2021, the team identified one of the bodies as John Gregory, the head engineer of the *Erebus*. Now, they have established the identity of Captain James Fitzjames, due to a Y-chromosome profile obtained from a tooth discovered at the NgLj-2 site. Fitzjames was a significant figure in the expedition, and his death likely occurred in May or June of 1848, soon after he assumed command following Franklin’s passing.

#### Cannibalism Evidence

One of the most unsettling aspects of the new discoveries is the confirmation of cannibalism among the crew. Inuit reports from the 1850s had implied that the survivors resorted to consuming their deceased comrades, but these claims were initially dismissed by Europeans as too shocking to validate. Nevertheless, in 1997, bioarchaeologist Anne Keenleyside identified cut marks on nearly 25% of the human bones retrieved from the NgLj-2 site, indicating that at least four men had been cannibalized.

The new research reinforces this grim reality. Fitzjames’ mandible displays several cut marks, aligning with the practice of cannibalism.

Weaknesses Detected in Systems Utilized by Courts and Government Entities Throughout the U.S.

# Alarming Security Flaws in Public Records Systems: An Urgent Call for Government Agencies

Public records systems, essential for the operation of courts, governmental bodies, and voter registration databases, have been revealed to contain numerous vulnerabilities that could enable malicious individuals to tamper with sensitive information. These systems, on which countless citizens depend for transparency and fairness within legal and governmental procedures, are now exposed as having significant flaws, raising critical issues regarding their integrity and protection.

## The Unveiling of Vulnerabilities

In the previous year, **Jason Parker**, a software developer who transitioned into security research, has identified and reported numerous serious vulnerabilities across at least **19 commercial platforms** employed by courts, government bodies, and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. These platforms handle everything from voter registrations to legal paperwork, and the vulnerabilities uncovered by Parker could permit attackers to **forge records, modify or erase data, and access confidential details**.

One deeply troubling defect was discovered within the **voter registration cancellation portal** in the state of Georgia. This gap allowed anyone with minimal information—such as a voter’s name, date of birth, and county of residence—to annul that voter’s registration. Another defect in **document management systems** utilized by local courthouses allowed unauthorized individuals to access sensitive legal documents, including sealed psychiatric evaluations.

In certain instances, attackers could even **grant themselves administrative access**, enabling them to create, delete, or alter official documents. Parker indicated that these vulnerabilities arose from **inadequate permission controls, insufficient validation of user input, and broken authentication processes**—all serious lapses in security.

## The Importance of Public Records Systems

Public records systems are vital for administering justice, safeguarding voting rights, and performing other critical governmental functions. These systems are crafted to promote transparency, equity, and trust in governmental operations. Nevertheless, the vulnerabilities identified by Parker reveal a **failure to exercise due diligence** in securing these systems, potentially leading to significant repercussions for the integrity of public records.

In his public remarks, Parker underscored the seriousness of the issue:
> “These platforms are meant to guarantee transparency and fairness, but they fall short in the most fundamental aspects of cybersecurity. If a voter’s registration can be canceled easily and private legal documents can be accessed by unauthorized parties, what does that indicate about the integrity of these systems?”

## Illustrations of Vulnerabilities

Some of the most concerning vulnerabilities Parker identified are:

– **Georgia Voter Registration Portal**: Enabled unauthorized individuals to cancel voter registrations with limited information.
– **Granicus GovQA Platform**: Employed by numerous government entities, this platform could be compromised to reset passwords and obtain usernames and email addresses through simple modifications to the web address.
– **Thomson Reuters’ C-Track eFiling System**: Attackers could elevate their user rights to that of a court administrator by altering specific fields during the registration stage.

These vulnerabilities are especially alarming given the sensitive nature of the data in question. For instance, the **C-Track eFiling system** is utilized in judicial proceedings, and unauthorized access to it could enable attackers to modify court documents, potentially influencing the outcomes of legal matters.

## A Widespread Pattern of Security Shortcomings

The vulnerabilities uncovered by Parker are indicative of a more extensive issue of **security shortcomings** within public records systems. Merely four months ago, a **malicious backdoor** was identified in the **JAVS Suite 8**, a tool utilized by 10,000 courtrooms globally for managing audio and video recordings of legal proceedings. Although the malware was allegedly installed on only two computers and did not lead to data breaches, it underscores the ongoing threats faced by these systems.

Parker’s discoveries imply that many of these vulnerabilities could have been prevented with fundamental security practices, such as **stricter input validation, enhanced permission controls, and stronger authentication procedures**. Regrettably, many affected platforms were devoid of these protective measures, exposing them to exploitation.

## The Way Forward: Addressing Systemic Problems

Fortunately, all the vulnerabilities Parker reported have been remedied, although some were only addressed in recent weeks. Nevertheless, Parker cautions that merely fixing these vulnerabilities is insufficient. In a recent blog entry, he advocated for a **comprehensive overhaul** of security management in public records systems.

> “Resolving these issues necessitates more than just patching a few defects,” Parker stated. “It demands a thorough revamp of security practices in court and public record systems. To avert attackers from seizing accounts or manipulating sensitive data, strong permission controls must be urgently established, alongside stricter input validation.”

Parker also highlighted the necessity for **routine security audits, penetration assessments**, and the incorporation of **Secure by Design** principles throughout the software development lifecycle. These strategies would help guarantee that public records systems are fortified from the outset, rather than relying on corrective measures after vulnerabilities have been detected.

Reddit Unveils Contentious Policy Shift Following Worries About Possible User Backlash

## Reddit’s Updated Community Type Guidelines: A Reaction to User Dissent and Platform Regulation

In a notable change in Reddit’s operations, the platform has unveiled fresh limitations on how subreddit moderators can modify their community settings. Following extensive user dissent last year, which led to thousands of subreddits going private or transitioning to not-safe-for-work (NSFW) content, Reddit has now enacted a mandate requiring moderators to obtain the platform’s approval prior to implementing such alterations. This initiative is part of Reddit’s wider strategy to avert future disturbances and retain authority over the platform’s functionalities.

### The Updated Guidelines: What’s New?

Reddit’s Vice President of Community, known by the username **Go_JasonWaterfalls**, shared the news in a post on [r/modnews](https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/1fsyzjd/a_change_to_community_type_settings/). The updated guidelines, impacting what Reddit calls “Community Types,” state that subreddit moderators are now required to seek Reddit’s consent before enacting specific changes to their communities. In particular, moderators must acquire approval for:

– Making a subreddit private.
– Transitioning a subreddit from safe-for-work (SFW) to not-safe-for-work (NSFW) or the opposite.
– Limiting a subreddit’s content.

Reddit has committed to addressing these requests within a 24-hour timeframe. However, notable exceptions exist: subreddits with fewer than 5,000 members or those younger than 30 days will have their requests pre-approved. Moreover, moderators can still impose temporary restrictions on posts or comments for a maximum of seven days using Reddit’s [Temporary Events](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/articles/27018580066708-Temporary-events) feature.

### The Trigger: Protests from Last Year

This policy alteration arrives in the aftermath of last year’s large-scale user protests, which were ignited by Reddit’s decision to [charge for API access](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/reddits-api-pricing-results-in-shocking-20-million-a-year-bill-for-apollo/). This choice resulted in the closure of numerous beloved third-party Reddit applications, triggering fury among both users and moderators. In protest, many subreddit moderators privatized their communities or limited access, while others inundated their subreddits with NSFW material, complicating Reddit’s advertising efforts.

Reddit reacted swiftly and decisively to these protests. The platform [removed several moderators](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/reddit-calls-for-a-few-new-mods-after-axing-polarizing-some-of-its-best/) and restored access to previously privatized subreddits. Although the protests eventually calmed, they underscored the significant influence unpaid moderators hold over the platform and the considerable financial ramifications of large-scale user actions.

### A Proactive Approach to Avert Future Dissent

Reddit has made it clear that the updated guidelines are a direct consequence of the protests. In comments to [The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/30/24253727/reddit-communities-subreddits-request-protests), Laura Nestler, also known as Go_JasonWaterfalls, recognized that the protests “accelerated” the rollout of this policy. Nestler indicated that Reddit had been contemplating these modifications since 2021, but the protests acted as a prompt, showing that moderators’ capabilities to privatize subreddits “could be utilized to harm Reddit on a large scale.”

In a post on r/modnews, Reddit elaborated on its rationale:

> “The ability to instantly modify Community Type settings has been exploited to disrupt the platform and breach [our rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). We bear the responsibility of safeguarding Reddit and ensuring its long-term viability, and we cannot permit actions that intentionally inflict damage.”

This new policy is crafted to prevent a recurrence of last year’s protests, which Reddit has conceded could