Lawsuits Over Uber One Subscriptions Brought by 22 State Attorneys General

Regulators allege the rideshare company generated nearly $1 billion from its Uber One service by using a cancellation process that required customers to navigate dozens of steps.

Attorneys general from multiple states have joined federal regulators in accusing Uber of enrolling consumers into paid subscription plans without their consent.

The complaint (PDF) was brought jointly by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the attorneys general of 22 states on December 15, naming Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber USA LLC as defendants. 

The lawsuit claims that Uber violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which governs online subscription enrollment and cancellation practices, through deceptive marketing and “dark pattern” design practices tied to its Uber One subscription service.

Uber One costs $9.99 per month or $96 per year, and is marketed as offering discounts on rides and food delivery, including claims that members can “save $25 every month” and “cancel anytime.” According to the lawsuit, those claims were false or misleading in many cases, and consumers often did not receive the advertised savings after subscription fees were considered.

As of September 2024, Uber had enrolled more than 28.7 million consumers into Uber One subscriptions, generating approximately $935 million in revenue over a two-year period, according to the filing. 

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

The Uber One complaint comes as roughly 2,900 Uber sexual assault lawsuits are pending across the federal court system. The cases raise similar allegations that passengers were sexually harassed, assaulted, or even kidnapped and raped by drivers who plaintiffs say were never properly vetted or trained due to Uber’s lax safety policies.

Most of these lawsuits have been brought by women who say the rideshare company performed only limited background checks on drivers, did not provide adequate training on sexual harassment or assault prevention, failed to install in-vehicle surveillance systems, and did not offer passengers the option to choose a driver by gender.

Uber One Enrollment Allegations

Separate from those claims, regulators are now focusing on Uber’s subscription practices. The new complaint alleges that Uber enrolled users into Uber One through pop-ups, pre-checked boxes, free trial offers and in-app prompts that did not clearly disclose recurring charges or require express informed consent. In some instances, consumers reported being charged despite never knowingly signing up for the service at all, regulators say.

The lawsuit was joined by the attorneys general of the following states and jurisdictions:

Central to the lawsuit are allegations that Uber intentionally designed its cancellation process to deter users from ending subscriptions. Regulators claim consumers were forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and complete more than 30 separate actions to cancel Uber One, often without clear guidance or confirmation that cancellation was successful.

The complaint further alleges that Uber removed in-app cancellation options within 48 hours of a billing date, redirecting users into confusing loops or requiring them to contact customer support, where delays frequently resulted in additional charges being processed anyway.

“Additionally, many consumers in Uber One memberships are charged unexpectedly due to Uber’s misleading policy of charging consumers for a new subscription 24 to 48 hours before their stated billing date. Consumers who have tried to cancel their Uber One subscriptions within the last 48 hours of their free trial often find out they have already been enrolled in and prematurely charged for a paid subscription before their free trial has even ended.”

— U.S. Federal Trade Commission et al v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al

Internal Uber documents cited in the filing allegedly show the company was aware that most users attempting to cancel did not value the subscription and would not retain it even if the price were reduced to $1 per month.

The lawsuit asserts violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act for unfair and deceptive practices, as well as multiple provisions of ROSCA, which requires clear disclosures, affirmative consent and simple cancellation mechanisms for online subscription services.

State attorneys general are also pursuing parallel claims under their respective consumer protection statutes, seeking restitution, civil penalties and injunctive relief.

“Virginians should not be tricked into paying for services they didn’t knowingly sign up for or trapped in subscriptions they cannot easily cancel. Deceptive enrollment and billing practices have no place in the marketplace.”

— Jason Miyares, Virginia Attorney General, Press release

The FTC and states are asking the court to bar Uber from engaging in the alleged practices, impose civil penalties for ROSCA violations and require monetary relief for affected consumers.

Uber Sexual Assault Bellwether Trials

The Uber One case is unrelated to the broader Uber sexual assault litigation, where claims filed in federal courts across the U.S. have been centralized in the Northern District of California under Judge Charles Breyer, alongside hundreds of similar state court claims.

As part of those proceedings, Judge Breyer has ordered a series of bellwether trials to help gauge how juries may respond to common evidence and testimony expected across the litigation. The court selected six cases for early trial consideration.

The first bellwether case, filed by Jaylynn Dean, is now scheduled to begin on January 13, 2026, in Phoenix, Arizona, after the court postponed the original January 7 start date. A pretrial conference is set for January 6, with jury selection expected to follow shortly thereafter.

Alongside the complaints consolidated in the federal MDL, a series of sexual assault claims against the rideshare giant have been filed in state courts as well. 

In California state court, the first Uber sexual assault case went to trial earlier this year, resulting in a mixed verdict. Jurors found Uber negligent in failing to protect passengers but concluded that the negligence did not substantially contribute to the assault, leaving the company not liable for damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.