In April 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched a high-profile lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc., alleging deceptive billing and cancellation practices tied to its subscription service, Uber One. The case is more than a consumer protection issue; it is a cautionary tale for businesses operating in digital marketplaces across North America, including Canada.
For Canadian businesses engaging in e-commerce, the lawsuit offers critical insights into how regulatory bodies view consumer consent, transparency in subscription services, and digital fair dealing.
FTC Allegations Against Uber
The FTC’s lawsuit accuses Uber of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, a U.S. law designed to protect online consumers from misleading subscription billing. According to the complaint, Uber engaged in three key types of misconduct:
- Deceptive Marketing: Uber allegedly promoted Uber One subscriptions as providing significant monthly savings (up to $25 per month) without properly disclosing the actual cost of the subscription ($9.99/month or $96/year).
- Involuntary Billing: The FTC claims Uber charged users for Uber One without obtaining valid consent. Some consumers reportedly found themselves enrolled and billed after merely interacting with promotional offers or trials.
- Difficult Cancellation Procedures: According to the complaint, users encountered multiple hurdles when attempting to cancel their subscriptions. The process was neither simple nor straightforward. In some cases, users were directed to contact customer service but provided no reliable way to do so, and some were even charged again after cancellation attempts.
If proven, these practices would represent a serious breach of consumer trust and the legal requirement to obtain informed, affirmative consent.
Uber’s Response to the FTC
Uber has pushed back strongly against the allegations. Company spokesperson Noah Edwardsen issued a statement expressing disappointment in the FTC’s decision and defended the company’s conduct, asserting that the sign-up and cancellation process is straightforward and lawful. Uber says the cancellation process can be completed in-app in under 20 seconds.
Uber also noted that the company does not enroll users or charge fees without consent, and highlighted improvements it has made in recent years to address consumer concerns.
However, the FTC remains firm, asserting that millions of consumers have been misled or inconvenienced by design choices that make cancellation difficult and consent ambiguous.
Why This Matters: The Rise of “Dark Patterns” and Global Scrutiny
The Uber case is part of a growing trend in consumer protection enforcement aimed at so-called “dark patterns”—user interface designs that subtly manipulate consumers into making choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. These patterns may involve visual tricks, misleading wording, or obstacle-ridden cancellation procedures.
Regulators in the U.S., Europe, and increasingly Canada, are watching these practices closely. The Competition Bureau of Canada has taken enforcement action in other cases on similar grounds, such as deceptive pricing practices and failure to disclose all-in pricing.
For Canadian businesses, the Uber case underscores the risks of relying on User Experience (UX) design strategies that blur the lines between marketing and manipulation. Practices that nudge users into subscriptions or make it hard to leave can invite regulatory scrutiny, lawsuits, and reputational damage.
Key Legal Frameworks in Canada
Although this lawsuit is unfolding in the United States, similar consumer protection principles exist in Canadian law. Key statutes and regulations that may apply in equivalent situations include:
- The Competition Act: The federal Competition Act prohibits materially false or misleading advertising, including deceptive trial offers and hidden fees.
- The Consumer Protection Act: Several provinces, including Ontario, have their own Consumer Protection Acts. These laws require clear disclosure of terms, especially for recurring charges or subscriptions. Similarly, Québec’s Civil Code imposes a high standard of good faith and clear disclosure in contracts, including those entered into online.
Beyond these statutes, Canadian courts may also consider tort claims such as misrepresentation or unjust enrichment where consumers are billed without proper consent.
The Litigation Risk: What Could Happen in a Canadian Context?
If a Canadian company were to engage in similar practices to those in the FTC vs. Uber allegations, multiple forms of liability could arise:
- Class Action Lawsuits: As in the U.S., consumers could sue a company under class action rules for unauthorized billing or misleading subscription practices.
- Regulatory Penalties: Agencies like the Competition Bureau or provincial consumer protection bodies could initiate investigations or impose administrative penalties.
- Reputational Fallout: Even without formal legal proceedings, public exposure of deceptive subscription practices can have long-lasting brand damage and lead to user attrition.
It’s also worth noting that in recent years, Canadian courts have become more receptive to scrutinizing standard-form digital contracts and pre-checked boxes, especially where consent or fairness is in doubt.
FTC vs. Uber: Lessons for Canadian Businesses
The Uber lawsuit presents several vital takeaways for Canadian businesses offering subscription services or recurring billing.
1. Obtain Express, Informed Consent
Consent should be active, not passive. Avoid using pre-checked boxes or vague language. Ensure that all terms, including pricing and renewal dates, are prominently disclosed before the consumer agrees.
2. Make Cancellation Easy
A core allegation in the Uber case is that users couldn’t easily exit the service. Canadian businesses should ensure that the cancellation process is no more difficult than the sign-up process. Provide multiple, accessible pathways to cancel, ideally including self-service options that don’t require speaking to a representative.
3. Avoid Misleading Savings Claims
Don’t advertise vague or theoretical savings unless they are substantiated and clearly explained. If you say customers will “save $25 per month,” be transparent about how that figure is calculated and whether the savings offset the subscription cost.
4. Audit and Test the User Experience
Legal teams should regularly audit the customer journey, especially regarding sign-up and cancellation. What looks intuitive in design may be legally problematic in practice. Consider conducting internal UX tests to spot potential dark patterns.
5. Train Your Marketing and Product Teams
Legal compliance isn’t just a back-office issue. Marketing, design, and development teams should be trained on legal standards around consent, fairness, and transparency.
Consent Is More Than a Click
The FTC’s lawsuit against Uber is a stark reminder that in digital commerce, consent is not just a checkbox but a legal and ethical commitment. As subscription models proliferate across sectors, from software to transportation to media, companies must ensure their practices are effective, lawful, and fair.
Canadian businesses would be wise to treat this lawsuit not as an isolated U.S. regulatory story, but as a warning sign of broader enforcement trends. Proactive legal compliance, ethical UX design, and transparent customer communication aren’t just best practices but shields against significant legal and reputational risk.
Contact Campbell Litigation for Exceptional Commercial Litigation Services in Kitchener-Waterloo
If your business offers digital services or subscription-based products, now is the time to review your practices. The Uber case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny around consent, transparency, and user experience design in the U.S. and Canada. Richard Campbell, founder of Campbell Litigation, is a skilled commercial litigation lawyer who helps Ontario businesses identify and mitigate legal risk before it escalates into regulatory action or class proceedings. Contact us online or call 519-886-1204 for strategic advice on compliance audits, digital contract review, and proactive litigation risk management.
