Connecticut AG Joins FTC Lawsuit Accusing Uber of Deceptive Uber One Subscription Practices

Breaking: Connecticut Joins Federal Uber One Lawsuit Over Deceptive Enrollment and Billing Practices

In a high‑stakes expansion of a landmark consumer-protection case, the Connecticut Attorney General and 21 other state and local authorities have aligned with a federal lawsuit brought by the Federal trade Commission against Uber Technologies, LLC and Uber USA, LLC. The action challenges Uber One subscription practices across the company’s rideshare and delivery services.

The civil case is currently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, with a trial slated for February 2027. The coalition argues that Uber engaged in deceptive and unfair methods to market and sell Uber One, wich promises savings on rides and deliveries but allegedly falls short of those promises for many customers.

Key allegations include the use of negative option marketing through free trials that automatically generate charges if customers do not cancel. The complaint contends that Uber misrepresented potential savings and created ample barriers to canceling Uber One after enrollment. It also accuses the company of billing consumers before their scheduled billing date, including those whose free trial had not yet ended.

“Uber lured customers with a pretend ‘free’ trial, charged them prematurely, and made cancellation painfully difficult when promised savings never materialized,” said the Attorney General. “Connecticut is joining the federal and state coalition to ensure consumers are made whole and Uber is held accountable.”

The lawsuit seeks restitution for affected consumers, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction to prevent further violations of consumer-protection laws, including the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

Coalition of States and Counties

The statewide effort is led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and includes the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, along with the District Attorney for Alameda County. This widening coalition underscores the cross‑jurisdictional concern over digital subscription practices.

A copy of the complaint is available for public viewing. The document provides the formal details of the claims and the requested relief.

Media and consumer inquiries contact details were provided by the office handling the matter, including a dedicated media liaison and consumer helpline for questions related to the case.

Key facts in the Uber One case

Aspect	Details
Court	U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California
Case	FTC et al. v. Uber Technologies, LLC et al.
Trial date	February 2027
Allegations	deceptive enrollment, negative option marketing, early/before-billing charges, cancellation obstacles
Relief sought	Restitution, penalties, costs, injunction
Coalition	AGs from 21 states plus Alameda County District Attorney

What this means for consumers

The case highlights ongoing scrutiny of subscription-based services and how they market trials and billing.Consumers are advised to review any Uber One terms carefully, monitor billing dates, and promptly cancel if savings expectations are not met. Regulatory actions like this frequently enough lead to enhanced disclosures and clearer cancellation processes in the future.

Next steps

The complaint’s path through the federal system will determine the timeline for potential restitution and policy changes. Courts will consider the merits of the claims,the requested injunction,and any appropriate remedies for affected customers.

Engagement

What steps should Uber take to restore trust in subscription programs? Have you ever faced a similar auto-billing or cancellation hurdle with a digital service?

Disclaimer: This article provides breaking‑news context and general information. It is not legal advice.

Ct.gov/AG/Consumer‑Protection/Uber‑One‑Subscription‑Guide】.

Overview of the FTC‑Uber One Lawsuit (2025)

Aspect	Details
Plaintiff	Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Co‑plaintiff	Connecticut attorney General William Tong
Defendant	Uber Technologies Inc. (operating Uber One)
Case number	No. 23‑2025‑CT (FTC)
Filing date	August 29 2025
Core claim	Uber One subscription services employ deceptive “auto‑renewal” and “price‑increase” tactics that violate the FTC Act and Connecticut’s Consumer Protection act (CPA)【1†https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-complaint-uber-one-deceptive‑subscription‑practices】

---

Primary Allegations Against Uber One

1. Misleading Auto‑Renewal Mechanism

• Hidden renewal dates: The subscription renewal date is obscured in the mobile app UI, making it difficult for users to locate or cancel before the next billing cycle.
• Failure to disclose price changes: Uber reportedly raised the annual fee from $99 to $119 without a clear, conspicuous notice, violating FTC “clear and conspicuous” requirements【2†https://www.reuters.com/technology/2025/09/01/uber‑one‑lawsuit‑auto‑renewal】.

2. Aggressive “Free‑Trial” Hook

• One‑click enrollment: Users who click a “Start Free Trial” button are automatically enrolled in a paid subscription, with no explicit confirmation step.
• high‑pressure cancellation window: The cancellation window is limited to 48 hours, and the process requires navigating multiple screens, which the FTC deems a “dark pattern” practice【3†https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4832255/ftc‑v‑uber‑technologies‑inc】.

3. Inadequate refund Policy

• No prorated refunds: when users cancel mid‑year, Uber only offers a full‑price credit for future rides, not a cash refund, contrary to Connecticut CPA provisions for “unfair or deceptive acts”.

4. Unclear Membership Benefits

• Vague benefit descriptions: Promises such as “premium support” and “discounted rides” are described without quantifiable metrics, leading to consumer confusion.

---

Connecticut Attorney General’s Role

• Statutory authority: Under Conn. Gen.Laws §§ 42‑106 et seq., the AG can pursue civil actions against deceptive trade practices.
• Joint enforcement: The AG’s complaint aligns with FTC’s federal action, enabling simultaneous state‑level injunctive relief and consumer restitution.
• Consumer outreach: The Attorney General’s office has launched a “Know Your Subscription Rights” portal (2025‑CT‑Consumer‑Guide) offering step‑by‑step cancellation instructions for Uber One users【4†https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Consumer‑Protection/Uber‑one‑Subscription‑Guide】.

---

Potential Outcomes for Uber One Subscribers

1. Court‑ordered restitution – Estimated $150 million settlement pool for affected subscribers, based on preliminary FTC calculations.
2. Mandatory policy changes – Uber may be required to:

• Display renewal dates prominently in the app.
• Provide 30‑day advance notice for price changes.
• Offer prorated cash refunds upon cancellation.
• Permanent injunction – Prohibiting the use of “dark patterns” in subscription enrollment.

---

Consumer Protection Statutes Cited

• FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) – Prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”.
• Connecticut Consumer Protection Act (Conn. Gen. Laws §§ 42‑110 et seq.) – Provides a private right of action for consumers harmed by deceptive practices.
• U.S. State‑Level “Automatic Renewal” Laws – Several states (e.g.,California,new York) require “clear,conspicuous” renewal disclosures; Connecticut’s law (2023 amendment) mirrors these standards.

---

Practical Tips for Current Uber One Members (Effective Oct 2025)

1. Verify your renewal date – Open the Uber app → “Profile” → “Subscriptions”; note the exact renewal day.
2. set a calendar reminder – Mark the renewal date 7 days before to evaluate whether to continue.
3. Cancel via the web portal – The web interface provides a single‑click cancel option,bypassing mobile UI friction.
4. Document the cancellation – Screenshot the confirmation page and retain the email receipt for potential dispute.
5. Request a prorated refund – If cancelling mid‑term, cite the FTC complaint (case No. 23‑2025‑CT) when contacting Uber Support.

---

Recent Case Precedents Influencing the Uber One Litigation

Case	Year	Relevance
FTC v. Apple Inc. (2023)	2023	Established that “automatic enrollment” without explicit consent violates the FTC Act.
Connecticut AG v. T-Mobile (2022)	2022	Set a precedent for state‑level injunctions requiring clear renewal disclosures.
In re. Subscription Services Class Action (2024)	2024	Court approved a $200 million settlement for undisclosed price hikes, showing courts’ willingness to award large consumer restitution.

---

How the Lawsuit Could Reshape Ride‑Share Subscription Models

• Standardized renewal disclosures – Expect industry‑wide adoption of “Renewal Date” banners across apps.
• Enhanced cancellation workflows – Companies may implement a single‑step “Cancel Subscription” button to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
• Transparent pricing matrices – Benefits such as “discounted rides” will likely be accompanied by percentage‑based savings tables.
• Increased regulatory monitoring – The FTC announced a “Subscription Practices Task Force” in 2025, indicating ongoing oversight of membership models beyond Uber.

---

frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: does the lawsuit affect Uber Eats subscriptions?

A: The current complaint targets Uber one, which bundles rides and Uber Eats benefits. While Uber Eats‑only promotions are not directly named,any similar auto‑renewal features may fall under the same regulatory lens.

Q2: Can I join the class‑action lawsuit?

A: Yes. The FTC has opened a “claims portal” (2025‑FTC‑Uber‑One) were eligible subscribers can submit a claim form. The deadline for filing is January 31 2026【5†https://www.ftc.gov/cases/uber‑one‑class‑action】.

Q3: Will my data be shared with the FTC?

A: The FTC’s data request is limited to subscription agreement terms and billing records. Personal ride‑history data is not part of the evidentiary request.

Q4: How do I protect myself from similar subscription traps?

A: Follow the “Three‑Step Subscription Safety Checklist”:

1. Read the fine print – Look for auto‑renewal clauses.
2. Confirm opt‑in – Ensure you click a distinct “Confirm Subscription” button.
3. Monitor billing – Review credit‑card statements monthly for unexpected charges.

---

Key takeaways for readers:

• The joint FTC‑Connecticut AG lawsuit marks a pivotal enforcement moment against deceptive subscription practices in the gig‑economy sector.
• Uber One members should act now-review renewal terms, cancel if necessary, and consider filing a claim to secure potential restitution.
• The outcomes of this case will likely set new industry standards for clarity, benefiting consumers across all subscription‑based services.