There was a craigslist ad trying to hire Uber drivers a few weeks ago claiming they pay 90k. Yeah right. MAYBE 90k before taxes, insurance, gas, wear and tear on your car, etc. I feel bad for anyone who actually believes those ads and gets sucked in, thinking they'll actually make that much.

    He called the clause "both procedurally and substantively 
    unconscionable," since there was no clear way for drivers 
    to opt out.

Huh? Yeah, there is a very clear way to opt out. Don't drive for a company if you don't agree with the contract offered. It's a contract and acceptance is one of the elements of the contract. There are other employment and contracting options for people who know how to operate a motor vehicle.

Near as I can tell, the argument presented by this judge is tantamount to declaring all clauses voidable since the company never presented a way for the drivers to edit their contract and present a modified contract for the company to accept (which the company would likely choose not to accept every single time).

Also, lots of Uber drivers also drive Lyft and cherry pick rides. I've been known to run both apps at once, but I'm not a serious enough driver to make it worth my while. It's pretty hard to argue you're an employee when you realistically can be working for 2 companies at the same time.

This article is almost six weeks old. 12/10/15

The decision re: arbitration clause is huge.