body: What prevents companies like Uber to draw up contracts, which both the riders and drivers have to `sign` / `agree to` if they want to use Uber?
  
  
  This is in light of recent events related to [Uber drivers being ruled as employees by Californian Court.](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33171508) And also [the ban of Uber in Delhi due to incidents of rape and sexual assault by the drivers on women riders](http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-court-leaves-ban-on-uber-in-place-in-delhi-1434533438).
  
  
  Would companies like Uber not benefit by drawing up contracts, stating that drivers are contractors, if a driver has a problem with that they may not sign up.
  
  
  Similarly can they also not draw contracts for riders stating a limited liability and again if the rider has an issue with that they may not use Uber.
  
  
  Can such contracts be voided by the courts, even if they are signed by both parties?
  
  
  If they can do it, and it would help, why aren't they doing it? Or are they, then why is it not working for them?
  
  
  **P.S:** I am not saying that Uber has no responsibility of doing a background check on drivers (and making sure that Uber rides are completely safe), so that the safety of women as well as men and children can be ensured. Also if we are coming to it, some sort of verification of the rider will encourage women cab drivers to also operate an Uber.
  
  
  
title: What prevents uber to draw up end user contracts?