Uber One Class Action Lawsuit, Jesus v. Uber Technologies Says Customers Were Enrolled in Paid Memberships Without Consent

A new putative class action in federal court in California says Uber signed consumers up for its paid Uber One subscription without their knowing consent. The case, Jesus v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., was filed on October 1, 2026, in the Northern District of California. It lands while the Federal Trade Commission is already suing Uber in the same court over Uber One billing, so this is a second front on the same product.

There is no settlement, no certified class, no official settlement website and no claim form. The allegations have not been proven. This article explains what has been filed, how it connects to the FTC case, which laws are involved, and what Uber One members can do now.

Uber One Class Action: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Jesus v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al.
Case number	3:26-cv-11205
Filed	October 1, 2026
Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Plaintiff	Ashley Jesus
Defendants	Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber USA LLC
Plaintiff’s counsel	Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Janove PLLC
Main allegations	Enrollment in paid Uber One subscriptions without informed consent, recurring charges, misleading promotions and difficult cancellation
Subscription price cited	$9.99 per month or $96 per year
Laws cited (as reported)	California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus issues under California’s automatic renewal rules
Proposed classes	A nationwide class of consumers who interacted with certain Uber promotions and were then charged for Uber One, and a separate California class
Class certified?	No
Official settlement website	None. No settlement exists
Claim form and claim deadline	None
Related government case	FTC v. Uber, No. 3:25-cv-03477 (N.D. Cal.), pending
Current status	Newly filed. Uber has not been reported to have answered the complaint

What Does the Uber One Lawsuit Allege?

The lawsuit centers on how Uber promotes its subscription service to people who already use its ride-hailing and food-delivery apps. Uber One is a paid membership that offers benefits to eligible members. The lawsuit cites prices of $9.99 per month or $96 per year, billed on a recurring basis unless the member cancels.

According to reporting on the complaint, Uber promotes Uber One through emails, push notifications, in-app pop-ups and checkout screens. The plaintiff alleges that some offers make a discount or credit look like the main purpose of the screen, while the subscription enrollment and recurring payment terms are less noticeable. The complaint says a customer may click on an offer expecting Uber Cash or a discount and inadvertently start a paid membership.

The complaint also argues that because Uber already holds customers’ payment information, a person can be enrolled and billed without entering card details again, which may make the enrollment less obvious. It challenges Uber’s cancellation process too, alleging customers may have to move through multiple menus or contact support to stop the charges.

The plaintiff argues consumers should not be charged recurring fees unless they clearly understand they are joining a subscription and affirmatively agree. Whether Uber’s screens and disclosures broke the law will depend on the actual enrollment flows, the terms shown to users and the court’s rulings. These are allegations only.

What Happened to the Plaintiff?

According to published reports describing the complaint, the plaintiff’s experience was as follows. We have not independently reviewed the complaint, so treat these details as allegations as reported:

• On June 12, 2026, the plaintiff received an email offering $20 in Uber Cash toward a next Uber Eats order, clicked the link and placed an order believing they were redeeming the offer.
• The next day, the plaintiff received an email with the subject line “You’re officially an Uber One member!”
• Around July 9, 2026, the plaintiff noticed a $9.99 Uber One charge, contacted Uber to cancel and request a refund, and was allegedly refused.
• Another $9.99 charge allegedly appeared around August 9, 2026, and a second cancellation request was also allegedly unsuccessful.

The plaintiff seeks to represent other consumers who allegedly had similar experiences. Uber has not been found liable.

Why Is Uber Facing an FTC Lawsuit Over Uber One Too?

The new class action is separate from a federal enforcement case brought by the FTC. Here is how the government case has developed:

Date	Event
April 21, 2025	FTC files original complaint against Uber over Uber One
December 15, 2025	FTC files an amended complaint joined by 21 states and the District of Columbia
May 4, 2026	FTC files a second amended complaint; the FTC lists the case as pending
October 1, 2026	Jesus v. Uber filed in N.D. Cal. (No. 3:26-cv-11205)

According to the FTC, its complaint alleges Uber:

• charged consumers for Uber One without their consent, including some who signed up for a free trial and were billed before it ended;
• fell short on promised savings, including the $0 delivery fee pitch;
• made cancellation hard despite “cancel anytime” language, with the complaint describing as many as 23 screens and 32 actions to cancel.

The FTC says a complaint reflects its “reason to believe” the law is being broken, and that the court will decide the case. Uber has contested the claims. The same caution applies to the private case. Neither lawsuit has produced a ruling on the merits, and the FTC case is not a settlement of this one.

What Laws Are Involved in the Uber One Lawsuits?

California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and following)

The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs often use it to challenge subscription practices because a violation of another law, such as the automatic renewal rules, can serve as the “unlawful” prong. Remedies under the UCL are generally limited to restitution (getting money back) and court orders stopping the practice, not money damages.

California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 and following)

The FAL bars untrue or misleading advertising. Here, the plaintiff alleges Uber’s promotional messages could mislead consumers into thinking they were accepting a discount rather than starting a paid membership.

Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 and following)

The CLRA lists specific unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions and lets consumers sue for damages, restitution, injunctions and attorneys’ fees. Before suing for damages, a plaintiff generally must send the business a written notice and give it 30 days to fix the problem.

California’s Automatic Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 and following)

California’s ARL requires businesses that sell subscriptions to clearly disclose recurring-charge terms, get the consumer’s affirmative consent and offer an easy way to cancel. Amendments that took effect in 2025 tightened these rules, including consent and cancellation requirements. If a business violates the ARL, the goods or services provided may be treated as an unconditional gift in some situations. The complaint is reported to raise automatic renewal issues, but we have not confirmed which ARL claims are pleaded.

Federal Law Behind the FTC Case: FTC Act and ROSCA

The FTC’s case rests on Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), which bars unfair or deceptive practices, and on the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405). ROSCA requires clear disclosure of subscription terms, express informed consent before charging and a simple cancellation mechanism for online negative-option subscriptions. ROSCA is enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general, and courts have generally not treated it as giving private consumers a right to sue. That is why private subscription class actions usually rely on state law.

Separately, the FTC’s broader “click-to-cancel” rule was struck down by a federal appeals court in 2025, but ROSCA and Section 5 remain in force.

Class Action Rules and Possible Defenses

The case is in federal court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class certification. Federal courts can hear state-law class actions that meet the Class Action Fairness Act’s requirements (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)). Companies facing subscription class actions often move early to dismiss, or to force individual arbitration where a customer agreement contains an arbitration clause and class waiver, which courts have often enforced. We have not seen any Uber response in this case, so these are possibilities to watch, not reported facts.

Who Could Be Included in the Proposed Classes?

The complaint seeks to represent consumers who were allegedly enrolled in and charged for Uber One after interacting with an Uber promotional offer. Reporting says it proposes a nationwide class and a separate California class. These are proposed definitions, not a final decision on who qualifies.

A judge has not certified any class, and the court could narrow, change or reject the definitions. For now, do not assume that every Uber One subscriber, every person who got a promotional email or every customer who paid a membership fee is included. The facts that may matter include what promotion you interacted with, what disclosures appeared, whether you affirmatively agreed to enroll and whether you were charged.

Can Uber One Customers File a Claim or Get a Refund?

There is currently no claim form or settlement payment available through this lawsuit. The case remains a proposed class action and has not produced an approved settlement or a court-ordered refund program. These steps do not make someone a class member or guarantee compensation, but they cost nothing and can protect you:

1. Review your Uber account. Check whether Uber One is active and when it started.
2. Check your billing records. Look through bank and card statements for recurring Uber One charges you do not recognize.
3. Save promotional emails and screenshots. Keep any emails, texts, push notifications or screens connected to a discount, credit, free trial or membership offer, plus welcome and billing emails from Uber.
4. Cancel if you do not want it. Cancel Uber One in the Uber or Uber Eats app and keep the confirmation. Save any support chats or refund requests and responses.
5. Contact Uber. If you believe a membership was activated without your consent, ask Uber to cancel and explain the disputed charges. Keep a record of the request.
6. Ask your card issuer about disputes. Federal credit card billing rules generally require you to notify the card issuer of a billing error within 60 days of the statement date, and other payment types have their own time limits, so do not wait until the lawsuit ends.
7. Report problems. You can file a complaint with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or with your state consumer protection agency. A complaint does not guarantee a refund, but it can help regulators spot patterns.

Who Represents the Plaintiff in the Uber One Lawsuit?

The plaintiff is represented by Katherine M. Aizpuru, Hassan Zavareei and David W. Lawler of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and by Raphael Janove and Liana Vitale of Janove PLLC. Uber is the defendant, along with Uber USA LLC. We did not find a public Uber response in the sources we reviewed.

What Happens Next in the Uber One Class Action?

Because the lawsuit was only recently filed, it is at an early stage. A case like this generally moves through these stages before any class-wide compensation could become available:

1. Initial proceedings. Uber will respond to the complaint, and may file a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.
2. Discovery. If the case proceeds, the parties may exchange documents and data about enrollment screens, promotional offers, billing, cancellation steps and consumer complaints.
3. Class certification. The court decides whether the case can proceed on behalf of the proposed classes.
4. Settlement or further litigation. The parties may settle, which requires court approval, or continue toward trial.

These are possible stages, not a confirmed timetable. Check the federal docket for later filings.

Related Coverage

We have covered other disputes over unwanted subscriptions and automatic renewals. See NordVPN Security Class Action Lawsuit, Did NordVPN Trap You in an Unwanted Subscription? and our report on the Primal Queen lawsuit over subscriptions customers say they never agreed to. Those cases involve different companies and allegations, but they raise a similar question: whether customers clearly agreed to recurring payments before they were charged.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Uber One Class Action

Is there an Uber One class action settlement?

No. Jesus v. Uber Technologies Inc. is a newly filed proposed class action. No settlement has been announced in this case or in the FTC’s case.

Can I join the Uber One class action lawsuit?

There is nothing to join yet. No class has been certified and there is no claim form. If a class is certified later, eligible people would normally be notified.

What is the Uber One class action case number?

Jesus v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-11205, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Who filed the Uber One lawsuit?

Ashley Jesus filed the complaint on October 1, 2026, against Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber USA LLC.

What does the lawsuit say Uber did wrong?

The plaintiff alleges that some promotional offers led consumers to enroll in paid Uber One memberships without knowingly agreeing to recurring charges. The lawsuit also challenges the disclosures and the cancellation process.

How much money could Uber One customers receive?

The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief, but no amount has been approved or established. Any recovery would depend on the outcome of the case or a future settlement.

Does the lawsuit mean Uber has been found guilty?

No. The allegations have not been proven, and the court has not found that Uber violated any law.

Is the FTC lawsuit the same as this class action?

No. The FTC case, FTC v. Uber (No. 3:25-cv-03477), is a government enforcement action joined by 21 states and D.C. Jesus v. Uber is a private lawsuit seeking to represent consumers. They concern the same product but are separate cases.

What should I do if Uber charged me for a membership I did not authorize?

Review your account and statements, save promotional and billing records, cancel the membership if you do not want it, contact Uber to dispute the charges and ask your card issuer about dispute options. You can also report it to the FTC.

Bottom Line

Jesus v. Uber Technologies is early-stage litigation. It alleges that Uber’s promotions led people into paid Uber One memberships they did not knowingly choose, and it arrives while the FTC is pursuing a related case over the same product. No class, settlement or claim form exists yet, so the practical step for members is to check their billing, keep their records and cancel anything they did not want.

Disclaimer: I am a legal content researcher, not a practicing attorney. This article is general information, not legal advice. The lawsuit’s claims are allegations, not court findings. Plaintiff-specific details are as reported and have not been confirmed against the complaint. Laws vary by state and your circumstances may differ. For advice about your own situation, consult a licensed attorney.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is the founder and legal content researcher at AllAboutLawyer.com, a legal information site covering consumer class action lawsuits and settlements.

Sources

1. Federal court docket, Jesus v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-11205 (N.D. Cal.), via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3%3A2026cv11205/480136
2. Federal Trade Commission, Uber, FTC v., case page, Docket No. 3:25-cv-03477 (N.D. Cal.): https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2423092-uber-ftc-v
3. Federal Trade Commission, “FTC and States File Amended Complaint Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices,” December 15, 2025: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-states-file-amended-complaint-against-uber-deceptive-billing-cancellation-practices
4. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition Law): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=17200.
5. California Business and Professions Code § 17500 (False Advertising Law): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=17500.
6. California Civil Code § 1770 (Consumers Legal Remedies Act): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1770.
7. California Automatic Renewal Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq.
8. Federal Trade Commission Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45; Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8401-8405
9. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666
10. Published reports describing the complaint, used for plaintiff-specific allegations (not independently verified against the complaint)

By Israr Ahmad, Founder and Legal Content Researcher, AllAboutLawyer.com | Last updated: October 10, 2026