
FTC Sues Uber Over Alleged ‘Deceptive Billing and Cancellation' Policies
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against rideshare company Uber, accusing it of misleading customers, the agency said in an April 21
The FTC alleged that the company 'charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its 'cancel anytime' promises.'
Uber's 'deceptive billing and cancellation practices' violate the
ROSCA requires online retailers to clearly disclose service terms, secure customers' consent before charging them for a service, and offer a simple way to cancel any recurring subscriptions.
'Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel,' FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said. 'The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people.'
The
Related Stories
4/16/2025
4/5/2025
Uber dismissed the FTC allegations in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.
A company spokesperson said Uber does not sign up or charge customers without obtaining consent and that subscriptions can be canceled anytime via the app, taking 20 seconds or less for most people.
The lawsuit charged Uber with a count of misrepresentation, alleging that the company 'directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication,' indicated to customers that they could cancel subscriptions at any time without incurring any additional costs.
'Consumers cannot cancel at 'any time' without being charged additional fees,' the complaint alleged.
The Uber spokesperson said this process has been changed. In the earlier instance, customers who wanted to cancel within 48 hours of their next billing period were required to contact support to proceed with cancellation.
'This is no longer the case; consumers can now cancel in the app at any time, and we have refunded customers who had reached out to Uber Support to cancel within 48 hours of their next billing period,' the spokesperson said, adding that 'consumers who canceled were never charged additional fees.'
The FTC said Uber failed to 'clearly and conspicuously disclose' all material terms to customers before obtaining their billing information.
This includes disclosures such as enrollment in a recurring billing plan, the method of cancellation, when they will be billed and charged, and the amount of money users save by subscribing to the Uber One service.
The company spokesman said Uber's sign-up for the One subscription 'shows material disclosures on the same screen as the option to choose payment method, including that the consumer will be charged on a recurring basis to a payment method on file at Uber, and that they can cancel up to 48 hours in advance of their next billing date to avoid charges.'
Customer Complaints
The FTC gave multiple examples of Uber allegedly misleading customers.
For instance, when customers sign up for the One service, they are 'wrongly promised' savings of $25 per month, it said. The company does not take into account the cost of a subscription, which can be up to $9.99 per month, when calculating savings, the FTC said.
Many customers said they were enrolled in the One service without consent, with one person saying they were charged even without having an Uber account, the FTC alleged.
Uber allegedly made it 'extremely difficult' for customers to cancel subscriptions, forcing users to navigate up to 23 screens and take up to 32 actions to cancel.
The Uber spokesperson said the company was 'disappointed that the FTC chose to move forward with this action' but believes that the courts will side with the company.
'Uber One's sign-up and cancellation processes are clear, simple, and follow the letter and spirit of the law,' the spokesperson said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Zorro clinches $20M Series A for ICHRA health plans
Health benefits provider Zorro raised $20 million in Series A funding led by Entrée Capital, CEO Guy Ezekiel tells Axios exclusively. Why it matters: As employers wrestle with rising health plan costs, individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) are gaining steam. Driving the news: Launched in 2020, ICHRAs were enabled by a Trump-era rule letting employers reimburse employees tax-free for individual health insurance instead of offering group plans. After a slow start, rule clarifications and compliance tools made them more accessible to midsized employers. Follow the money: Existing backers Pitango and 10D joined the round, which will be used to scale operations and improve support for employers. The Series A brings Zorro to $31.5 million total raised. The company is not yet profitable. How it works: New York City-based Zorro replaces traditional group plans with defined-contribution models. Employers set a budget; employees use Zorro's AI engine to select personalized plans, and brokers get real-time tools to compare group plans versus ICHRA-based options. When it onboards an employer, Zorro asks them to send their benefits roster from the previous year, asks about quality and budget priorities for the upcoming year, and helps predict what benefits employees might want next. Zorro has "several thousand" lives on the platform, per Ezekiel. Between the lines: Zorro's pitch hinges not just on cost control but on its ability to shift complex decision-making from HR to software — claiming that 75% of users enroll without human help. What they're saying: "We're giving the employer a line of sight to how his upcoming year is going to look," says Ezekiel. Reality check: While ICHRAs are gaining traction, they remain a small fraction of the employer market. Zorro's long-term success depends on widespread broker adoption and employee trust in AI-led benefit decisions. State of play: A February Bailey's report predicted the debut of several new ICHRA startups in 2025. Several others have secured recent funding. In April, Thatch raised $40 million in Series B funding led by Index Ventures and Venteur Health Insurance raised a $20 million Series A led by Informed Ventures and American Family Ventures. Remodel Health last December collected more than $100 million in a round led by Oak HC/FT and Hercules Capital.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Close Trump Allies Sponsored the Military Parade, Raising Ethical Concerns
Saturday's military parade in Washington celebrating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army was sponsored by at least four brands that have strong financial and political ties to President Trump, raising questions about whether the event benefited his allies and supporters. Attendees who sought relief from the sweltering heat on the National Mall found free cans of a new energy drink brand sponsored by Dana White, who is the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and one of Mr. Trump's staunchest allies. Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm whose contracts with the federal government are expanding, and Coinbase, a cryptocurrency firm that donated to the president's inauguration, also sponsored the event. Oracle, a database company whose co-founder is a close friend of Mr. Trump's, received a shout-out on Saturday as a sponsor. U.F.C. was mentioned as a sponsor during the military procession and on the event's website, but its spokesman said in an email statement that the company was not a corporate sponsor and that Mr. White had supported the program in his personal capacity. Federal regulations prohibit the use of public office for the private gain of officeholders or their friends, relatives or nongovernmental affiliates, said Richard W. Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office under President George W. Bush. 'The parade is being used for advertising by these entities with close business ties to the president,' Mr. Painter said in an interview. 'You're in a situation where the U.S. government has been used to endorse a product.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I tried 2 ways of investing in bitcoin. One thrived and one failed miserably, teaching me a valuable lesson.
Last December, I decided to add bitcoin exposure to my portfolio through an ETF and a single stock. The iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF has climbed double digits, while Semler Scientific has underperformed. If you're a crypto beginner looking to get exposure to bitcoin, I recommend sticking to ETFs. Back in December of 2024, I decided to hop aboard the bitcoin train and add some crypto exposure to my portfolio. Markets were flush off of the recent Trump victory, there were whispers of a national bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin had recently broken the $100,000 threshold for the first time. The cryptocurrency had gone mainstream enough for late adopters like myself to deem it investable. For my first foray into bitcoin, I purchased a share of Blackrock's iShares Bitcoin Trust Trust (IBIT). I later added a share of Semler Scientific (SMLR), a healthcare technology company that holds bitcoin on its balance sheet. I wanted to try multiple methods of investing in bitcoin. In hindsight, I realize I committed the classic retail investor impulse: buying in because of FOMO. Sure, positive investor sentiment led to gains in bitcoin, as well as the ETF I bought that was designed to track the crypto. But my stock purchase proved ill-timed. Almost six months later, bitcoin has crossed new all-time-highs, and I have mixed feelings on my investment. I opted to buy IBIT instead of actual spot bitcoin because it was a more accessible way to get exposure. I didn't want the hassle of setting up a Coinbase account. Plus, buying a single share in an ETF was more psychologically appealing than buying a tiny fraction of a bitcoin (I did not have a spare $100,000 or the risk tolerance to buy an entire bitcoin). The performance has been encouraging. Year-to-date, IBIT is up about 14%, outpacing a 12% gain for bitcoin itself. It's done its job of tracking the crypto, and even added a little extra. And it's far outperformed the S&P 500, which is up just 2% in 2025. ETFs can experience slight tracking differences due to management fees, operational costs, and the timing of inflows and outflows. But if you want a rough proxy of bitcoin performance without actually owning the underlying asset, IBIT gets the job done. A year and a half over its launch, IBIT has gained incredible popularity, growing to over $70 billion in assets under management. Robert Cannon, a financial advisor at Experity Wealth with a specialization in alternative assets, recommends his bitcoin-curious clients to start with the ETF. "It's the easiest, cleanest representation of bitcoin, compared to some of the other strategies that are a bit esoteric," Cannon told me. The ETF wrapper has really helped bitcoin adoption take off in the last year, Rahul Sen Sharma, president and co-CEO at the custom index provider Indxx, told me. Sharma's seeing a surge in interest for bitcoin and digital asset ETFs, and he believes Trump's continued support for crypto will pave the way for more mainstream adoption. Getting bitcoin exposure through other methods was indeed more esoteric — and much less profitable. I added Semler Scientific to my portfolio on January 8, 2025, and it's down more than 40% since then. There's a growing trend among companies to add bitcoin to their balance sheets, with Strategy, Tesla, and GameStop being one of the most prominent examples. The president's own Trump Media and Technology Group has recently raised $2.5 billion to buy bitcoin. Semler Scientific started adding bitcoin to its balance sheet in May of last year and now holds over 4,000 bitcoins. It sounds like a good idea in theory: holding bitcoin as a reserve asset could be a hedge against inflation and dollar weakness, and could also lead to capital appreciation as bitcoin takes off. Some companies like Strategy have had tremendous success. The firm has accumulated over half a million bitcoins, and the stock has outperformed the underlying crypto year-to-date. However, it's hard to replicate the scale and expertise of Strategy. While many of Cannon's clients often inquire about bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, he usually recommends they stick to the basics with an ETF. There were also company-specific headwinds for Semler Scientific. The company had been under investigation from the Department of Justice for allegedly misleading claims about one of its medical devices. My takeaway from the experience is that buying a single stocks as a bitcoin proxy is probably not a good idea. When you buy into a bitcoin treasury company, you're also inheriting all of its company-specific risks. That includes everything from management decisions and financial health to legal exposure, product performance, and market sentiment around the core business. As a result, the benefits of diversification with bitcoin are watered down. If you're looking for bitcoin exposure, either buying the real thing or a spot ETF is your best bet. Maybe the strategy from here on out is to close out of my position in SMLR and do some tax-loss harvesting this year. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio