Allegations of deceptive sign-ups and hidden charges
-
New York Attorney General Letitia James has joined a multistate lawsuit accusing Uber of trapping consumers in hard-to-cancel subscriptions.
-
The suit targets Uber One, a paid service that promises savings on rides and food delivery but allegedly enrolls users without clear consent.
-
State and federal officials are seeking refunds for consumers and a permanent ban on the companys alleged deceptive practices.
A bipartisan coalition of 20 attorneys general in a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, LLC and Uber USA, LLC, accusing the company of misleading consumers and trapping them in recurring subscriptions to its Uber One service.
The lawsuit, originally filed by the Federal Trade Commission, alleges that Uber violated state and federal consumer protection laws by deceptively marketing Uber One and making it unreasonably difficult for users to cancel once enrolled.
According to the lawsuit, Uber aggressively promotes Uber One through pop-ups and in-app notifications in the Uber and Uber Eats apps, encouraging users to sign up for promised savings on rides and food delivery. The attorneys general allege that many consumers were enrolled without realizing they had signed up for a paid subscription.
Once enrolled, users were automatically charged $9.99 per month or $96 annually and faced what the lawsuit describes as a confusing and burdensome process to cancel, requiring them to navigate multiple menus and screens.
Unwanted subscriptions that are seemingly impossible to cancel are driving up costs for everyday New Yorkers, said New York Attorney General Letitia James. Companies should not be able to profit by tricking consumers into recurring charges that can require hours of difficult work to stop.
Claims about savings challenged
The lawsuit also challenges Ubers marketing claims about the financial benefits of Uber One. State officials allege that Uber falsely promised consumers they would save $25 every month with the subscription, without adequately disclosing that the claimed savings did not account for the monthly subscription fee.
Attorneys general argue that these representations misled consumers about the true cost and value of the service, particularly when combined with the automatic, recurring charges.
What the states are seeking
James and the coalition are asking the court to order restitution for consumers who were charged for unwanted Uber One subscriptions. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction to stop Uber from engaging in what the states describe as deceptive subscription and cancellation practices.
If successful, the case could force changes to how Uber markets and manages paid subscriptions nationwide, particularly those promoted through mobile apps with recurring billing.
Posted: 2025-12-16 20:31:05















