Federal Judge Rules Uber Must Face FTC ROSCA Claims Over Subscription Cancellation

Published
Score
12

Why it matters

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has allowed the FTC's lawsuit against Uber to proceed, rejecting Uber's motion to dismiss on April 10, 2026. Judge Jon S. Tigar found the complaint plausibly alleges that Uber charged consumers without consent for its Uber One subscription service, failed to deliver promised savings, and made cancellation unreasonably difficult despite advertising "cancel anytime" with no additional fees. The ruling permits claims under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act to move forward, though the court did dismiss one discrete claim challenging Uber's "$0 delivery fee" representation as sufficiently qualified.

The FTC filed the lawsuit in April 2025 alongside 21 state attorneys general. The core dispute centers on how Uber's app integrates stored payment credentials into the enrollment process. Specifically, courts have established that ROSCA requires subscription disclosures to precede consumer authorization of stored payment information, not occur simultaneously. Uber's practice of allowing users to pre-store payment data for individual transactions, then using those credentials for subscription enrollment without adequate advance notice of material terms, appears to violate this timing requirement. The judge signaled that companies might satisfy ROSCA by giving consumers a "clear opportunity to affirmatively opt in" after reviewing required disclosures, but simultaneous presentation of terms and authorization falls short.

Attorneys should monitor this case as it establishes enforceable precedent for subscription practices affecting millions of consumers. The ruling reinforces that convenience features cannot override consumer protection law and signals the FTC's sustained focus on dark patterns in subscription cancellation. Companies leveraging stored payment data to reduce enrollment friction while making cancellation difficult face heightened regulatory risk. Similar enforcement actions are likely to follow.

mail

Get notified about new Privacy developments

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

See more entries tagged Privacy.

Also on LawSnap