FTC sues Uber, alleging ‘deceptive’ Uber One charges and cancellations

CNN - Apr 21st, 2025

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Uber, accusing the company of engaging in deceptive billing and cancellation practices with its Uber One subscription service. The lawsuit claims that Uber charged customers without consent, made the cancellation process overly complicated despite advertising 'cancel anytime,' and failed to deliver the promised savings associated with the subscription. The FTC's suit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. Uber, represented by former FTC officials, disputes the allegations, asserting that its sign-up and cancellation processes are transparent and lawful.

Uber's legal team criticized the FTC's investigative process as rushed and grounded in misunderstandings. The company maintains that customers can cancel their subscriptions easily within the app and that charges are not made without prior consent. Nonetheless, the FTC highlighted instances of customers being auto-enrolled in the subscription before the completion of a free trial period and facing up to 23 screens to cancel. The case underscores the broader issue of consumer frustration with difficult-to-cancel subscriptions and raises important questions about consumer rights and corporate transparency in digital services, potentially influencing future regulatory actions in the tech industry.

Ftc Uber Uber One Deceptive Billing Subscription Services Tim Muris Christine Wilson Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively reports on the FTC's lawsuit against Uber, presenting both the allegations and the company's response. It provides a clear and timely account of the legal action, relevant to ongoing debates about consumer rights and corporate accountability. While the article is generally accurate and balanced, its impact and engagement could be enhanced by including additional perspectives and independent verification. The story is accessible and well-structured, though it would benefit from more transparency regarding the legal and investigative context. Overall, the article serves as a solid introduction to a complex issue with significant public interest implications.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports the key claims of the FTC's lawsuit against Uber, including allegations of deceptive billing and cancellation practices related to the Uber One subscription service. Specific details, such as the claim that customers had to navigate up to 23 screens to cancel a subscription or that savings were not calculated correctly, are consistent with the FTC's press release. However, the article would benefit from verifying these claims with additional sources or customer testimonials to strengthen its accuracy further.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both the FTC's allegations and Uber's response. It quotes the FTC Chairman and outlines the legal basis for the lawsuit, while also giving Uber's lawyers and company representatives a chance to counter these claims. However, the article could improve by including perspectives from affected customers or independent legal experts to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is clearly written, with a logical structure that guides the reader through the main points of the FTC's lawsuit and Uber's response. The language is straightforward and neutral, making the complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. However, it could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the legal context to enhance reader understanding.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements from the FTC and Uber, both of which have vested interests in the case. While these are authoritative sources, the lack of independent verification or additional sources, such as consumer advocacy groups or legal experts, limits the depth of analysis. Including these would enhance the credibility and reliability of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the claims and counterclaims but lacks transparency in terms of explaining the methodology behind the FTC's investigation or Uber's defense strategy. There is also limited disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, such as Uber's legal representation by former FTC officials, which could influence the narrative.