It's weird to me that the family is responsible for proving they didn't sign the agreement; shouldn't it be incumbent on the platform hosting the contract to validate that they have the correct counterparty?
Why is it that family's problem that Uber doesn't bother to validate contract signatories? It's well within Uber's power to take a selfie during the agreement, or require government ID, or a notary, or a dozen other things. I don't think there are any reasonable steps the family could have taken to futureproof against being accused of signing a contract they didn't actually sign (presuming they're telling the truth). How does one prove a negative?
I'd also add that I think this will backfire dramatically in the mid-long term. This is going to cost consumer trust, but more importantly, it fans the flames of the idea that we need to break apart these mega-corporations. Frankly, I would argue that a lot of these contracts should be non-enforceable because horizontal integration has reached a level where the results of refusing are extortionate. I can't think of a term other than "extortionate" to describe a situation where one party has so much power that they can force the other party to sign a contract giving away their rights _to a completely separate line of business_.
> shouldn't it be incumbent on the platform hosting the contract to validate that they have the correct counterparty?
If you had a "contract" with Uber it absolutely would work that way. If the thing they signed isn't notarized they could probably get it thrown out on that basis alone. All they need to do is have a entry in a database that says a checkbox was clicked.
Courts seem to align themselves with institutions and give them leeway individuals don't recieve. You're just a guy, they are Uber®.
Another thing to add to my list for when I next write my legislators.
Outside of notarized contracts, “arbitration” clauses should be banned.
Forced arbitration is giving companies extrajudicial powers, and it is so outrageous this is legal.