Regulators Accuse Uber of Tricking Users Into Uber One Subscriptions

The Federal Trade Commission has taken aim at Uber, filing a lawsuit on April 21, 2025, that accuses the rideshare giant of deceptive practices tied to its Uber One subscription service. The agency claims Uber enrolled customers without clear consent, charged them prematurely, and created a labyrinthine cancellation process, despite promises of easy opt-outs. This case, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, marks a significant moment in the ongoing effort to regulate the booming subscription economy.

At the heart of the dispute is Uber One, a premium service launched to offer perks like discounted rides and priority support for a monthly fee of up to $9.99. The FTC alleges that Uber misled consumers about savings, charged some without their knowledge, and made exiting the service a frustrating ordeal. For many Americans, who increasingly rely on subscriptions for everything from streaming to meal kits, the case resonates as a flashpoint in the broader conversation about transparency and fairness in digital marketplaces.

Consumer trust is fragile in an era where nearly every service seems to come with a recurring fee. Data from recent studies shows that 93% of U.S. consumers now hold at least one subscription, with 68% juggling multiple. While subscriptions offer convenience, they also bring risks—hidden fees, automatic renewals, and cancellation hurdles that can feel like traps. The FTC’s action against Uber underscores a growing push to hold companies accountable for practices that exploit these vulnerabilities.

The FTC’s complaint paints a troubling picture of Uber’s practices. It claims the company promised Uber One subscribers monthly savings of $25 but failed to account for the subscription’s cost in those calculations. Key details, like the recurring nature of the fee, were allegedly buried in small, grayed-out text, easily overlooked by users. Some consumers reported being charged despite never signing up, with one quoted in the complaint saying they were billed without even having an Uber account.

Billing issues extended to free trials. The FTC alleges that Uber charged some customers before their trial periods ended, despite assurances they could cancel at no cost. When users tried to opt out, they faced a gauntlet of up to 23 screens and 32 actions, including prompts to explain their decision, offers to pause memberships, or deals to stay. In some cases, users were directed to contact customer support but given no clear way to do so, leaving them stuck in a billing cycle they thought they had escaped.

These practices, the FTC argues, violate both the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive business conduct, and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), a law requiring clear disclosures, informed consent, and simple cancellation for online subscriptions. The agency’s case hinges on proving that Uber’s design choices were not just inconvenient but intentionally manipulative, a claim that aligns with broader regulatory concerns about deceptive tactics in digital interfaces.

Uber has pushed back against the allegations, asserting that its Uber One program is transparent and that its cancellation process has been simplified to allow instant opt-outs within the app. The company emphasizes that it values customer trust and has already made changes to address user complaints. Yet the lawsuit arrives at a time when the subscription economy is under intense scrutiny, with regulators worldwide cracking down on practices that undermine consumer autonomy.

The case also highlights the role of so-called dark patterns—design choices that nudge or trick users into unintended actions, like signing up for recurring charges or sharing personal data. A 2024 FTC review found that 76% of 642 subscription-based websites and apps used at least one such tactic, with 67% employing multiple. Examples include hiding fees until the final checkout stage or requiring excessive steps to cancel. The Uber case, with its focus on obstructive cancellation flows, fits squarely into this pattern of concern.

Beyond the U.S., global regulators are tackling similar issues. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act and South Korea’s 2025 E-Commerce Act amendments target manipulative designs, while countries like Germany and the UK mandate visible cancellation buttons. These efforts reflect a shared recognition that as subscriptions proliferate, so do opportunities for companies to exploit user behavior, often through subtle but effective interface tweaks.

The FTC’s lawsuit is part of a larger wave of enforcement aimed at cleaning up the subscription economy. In 2025, the agency’s updated Subscriptions Rule took effect, requiring companies to provide clear disclosures, obtain affirmative consent, and offer a straightforward “click-to-cancel” option. This rule, though facing legal challenges, sets a new standard for how businesses handle recurring charges. States like California and New York have also tightened their own auto-renewal laws, demanding explicit consent and easy opt-outs.

For consumers, these changes are a lifeline. Many have grown frustrated with subscriptions that seem to renew out of nowhere or require jumping through hoops to cancel. The rise of “serial churners”—people who frequently start and stop subscriptions—shows both the demand for flexibility and the distrust in companies’ billing practices. Advocacy groups argue that stronger regulations empower users to take control of their finances, while businesses warn that overly strict rules could stifle innovation in subscription models.

The Uber case also raises questions about platform accountability. As digital platforms like Uber wield immense influence over user experiences, regulators are pushing for greater transparency and fairness. From the EU’s Digital Services Act to proposed U.S. reforms, there’s a growing consensus that companies must be held responsible for the real-world impacts of their design choices, especially when those choices lead to financial harm.

As the Uber lawsuit moves forward, its outcome could set a precedent for how subscription services are regulated. A win for the FTC might force companies to overhaul their billing and cancellation processes, making it easier for consumers to navigate the subscription landscape. On the flip side, Uber’s defense could highlight the challenges of balancing user-friendly design with the need to retain customers in a competitive market. The court’s decision will likely influence how other tech companies approach subscription models.

For everyday users, the case is a reminder to stay vigilant. Checking bank statements, reading terms closely, and using subscription management tools can help avoid unwanted charges. Meanwhile, the FTC’s action signals that regulators are listening to consumer frustrations, even as the digital economy grows more complex. The fight for clarity and fairness in subscriptions is far from over, but this lawsuit is a step toward holding powerful platforms accountable.