Attorney General Platkin says rideshare giant made it “almost impossible” for users to cancel Uber One membership.
TRENTON, NJ – New Jersey has joined a coalition of 22 states and local prosecutors in suing Uber Technologies, LLC, and Uber USA, LLC, over what officials describe as deceptive and unfair practices tied to the company’s Uber One subscription service. The lawsuit, originally filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in April in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Uber misled consumers about the service’s cancellation policies and engaged in tactics designed to trap customers in recurring payments.
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced Monday that the state has joined the legal action, accusing the rideshare and delivery giant of violating New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and the federal Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.
Allegations of a byzantine cancellation process
According to the complaint, Uber advertised its Uber One membership — which costs $9.99 per month or $96 annually — as an easy way to save money on rides and food deliveries. However, once enrolled, users allegedly encountered an extraordinarily difficult cancellation process.
Investigators found that subscribers attempting to cancel their membership were forced through as many as 23 different screens and required to complete at least 32 separate actions, including scrolling, clicking, and typing, before being able to submit a cancellation request. Even then, consumers had to wait for an Uber customer service representative to process the request — often facing hours-long delays or continued charges before confirmation.
“Canceling a subscription service should not force you through a byzantine process that requires clicking through two dozen screens or more,” said Attorney General Platkin. “Too often, companies looking to sell you on convenience are doing so with one hand already in your wallet.”
Consumers charged before billing date or enrolled without consent
The lawsuit also accuses Uber of improperly charging customers before their billing dates, including during free trial periods, and of automatically enrolling consumers without their knowledge. It alleges that Uber used “negative option” marketing, a tactic that treats a customer’s silence or failure to cancel as consent to continued charges.
Under these practices, users who signed up for “free trials” were automatically converted to paid subscriptions if they failed to cancel before the trial ended — a policy that was allegedly unclear and difficult to avoid.
“This lawsuit describes, in painstaking detail, how people felt trapped and scammed by this service, and how it was almost impossible to leave,” said DCA Acting Director Elizabeth M. Harris. “New Jersey has among the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation, and those laws protect against the types of corporate behavior laid out here.”
Lawsuit seeks restitution and injunction
The multistate complaint seeks restitution for affected consumers, along with civil penalties, legal costs, and a court injunction preventing Uber from continuing the alleged deceptive practices.
New Jersey officials say the state’s involvement reinforces its commitment to holding large corporations accountable for unfair treatment of consumers, particularly those involving automated billing and digital subscription traps.
Consumers who believe they were improperly charged or enrolled in Uber One can file a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs online or by mail at P.O. Box 45025, Newark, NJ 07101.
National coalition takes shape
The case is being led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, with participation from the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the District Attorney for Alameda County, California.
The lawsuit marks one of the most expansive multistate actions targeting deceptive online marketing practices by a major tech company, signaling increasing scrutiny over how digital platforms handle subscriptions and automatic renewals.
If successful, the legal action could result in multimillion-dollar restitution and establish stronger federal and state standards for subscription transparency — a move that consumer advocates say is long overdue.
