Judge allows most FTC claims against Uber to survive

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge allowed most of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) claims about misleading subscription charges against Uber to continue Friday, saying Uber did not sufficiently plead its arguments for a motion to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama appointee, denied Uber’s motion to dismiss, ruling after Thursday’s hearing that the FTC can pursue claims under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) over claims that Uber made it intentionally difficult to cancel its Uber One membership.

“At the motion to dismiss stage, Uber’s cursory argument is insufficient to establish as a matter of law that any ambiguity in ROSCA prevented Uber from possessing the requisite knowledge or led it to make a mistake of law,” said Tigar in his 27-page order.

Additionally, Tigar noted the 21 states that joined the FTC in December 2025 against Uber had standing to pursue the case “because fraudulent conduct harms their sovereign interest in the integrity of their marketplaces.”

The FTC sued Uber in April 2025 following an agency investigation and customer complaints, according to FTC attorney Paul Mezan. The agency seeks a permanent injunction and civil penalties for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and ROSCA.

The complaints center on customers’ inability to cancel Uber One, the company’s $9.99-a-month subscription service, after signing up for a free trial, said Mezan, an attorney in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Customers had to navigate a “Rube Goldberg-like cancellation maze,” Mezan said at Thursday’s hearing, adding that canceling the service required 32 actions, including clicks and responses.

Many customers faced long wait times and delays, Mezan said, and were charged again before they could fully cancel Uber One. He added that Uber knew the process was difficult because it later created an online tutorial explaining how to cancel the service, which he said has been viewed by thousands of customers.

Tigar dismissed one claim involving Uber’s advertising of $0 delivery fees on eligible orders. The FTC argued the word “eligible” was misleading, but Tigar agreed with Uber that most people would understand it to mean only some orders qualified for free delivery.

“Even if a reasonable consumer may not know which orders will qualify, no reasonable consumer would assume that all orders do so,” he said.

Neither Uber nor FTC attorneys immediately responded to requests for comment.