Be the first to know: Stories from The Washington Informer in your inbox each weekday.

Black News, Commentary and Culture | The Washington Informer

The District of Columbia has joined a sweeping consumer protection lawsuit accusing Uber of enrolling customers into paid subscriptions without consent and then making it difficult for them to cancel.D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb announced that his office is part of a coalition of 24 state and local law enforcement agencies backing a lawsuit originally filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber USA LLC.

The case, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Uber engaged in deceptive and unfair practices tied to its Uber One subscription service, which the company markets as a way for riders and delivery customers to save money.Uber One reportedly costs $9.99 per month or $96 per year and is promoted with claims that users can cancel at any time. According to the complaint, more than 28 million consumers nationwide have been enrolled in the program, including more than 100,000 residents in the District.

The lawsuit alleges that many consumers were signed up without clear consent, were charged before free trial periods expired, and were steered into a complicated cancellation process designed to discourage them from ending their subscriptions.The complaint outlines numerous consumer reports describing unexpected Uber One charges appearing on credit cards and bank accounts. It also details what regulators describe as a deliberately burdensome cancellation process that required users to navigate at least seven screens and complete a minimum of 12 separate actions.

For some users attempting to cancel within 48 hours of a billing date, the process allegedly expanded to more than 20 screens and dozens of steps, with some consumers still being charged despite attempting to cancel on time.Regulators further allege that Uber charged consumers before stated billing dates, including during free trial periods, and relied on negative option marketing practices that automatically converted trials into paid subscriptions unless users successfully cancelled.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for affected consumers, civil penalties, costs, and an injunction barring Uber from continuing the alleged conduct under federal and local consumer protection laws.

“Uber was a great idea at its inception, particularly in light of the massive corruption of the D.C. Cab Commission. Currently I consider Uber drivers to be dangerous until shown to be otherwise, and Uber billing practices sufficiently deceitful to cause me to search for alternatives,” social media user Grace Kane wrote in response to the attorney general’s announcement via X, formerly known as Twitter. “For example, reserving an Uber at the lowest price may be switched for an Uber at a higher price, citing the unavailability of drivers at the lower price. Classic bait and switch.”

Uber did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trial in the case is currently scheduled for February 2027.

“Particularly when costs of living are higher than ever, no one should ever be stuck paying for a subscription they do not want,” Schwalb said.