FTC takes action against Uber for deceptive billing and cancellation practices

Subscription & Cancellation Dark Patterns

• Many report being tricked into Uber One during checkout (e.g., a trial screen visually identical to the “place order” screen, inserted mid-flow).
• Cancellation is often described as convoluted: multiple screens, hidden options, and sometimes being blocked within 24–48 hours of renewal.
• Some users say their own cancellation was “only” ~9–10 screens and not as bad as the FTC’s “23 screens,” suggesting variation by A/B test, location, or time.
• Comparisons are made to other industries (gyms, Equifax, OnStar, newspapers) that force phone calls or in‑person visits to cancel, reinforcing a general pattern of hostile design.
• Several propose a rule: cancelling must be at least as easy and via the same channel as signing up.

Pricing, Fees & Dynamic Behavior

• Users report:
  • Business profiles and Uber Cash/gift cards often yielding higher quoted fares than personal profiles or no credit balance.
  • Food delivery markups of 20–100% over restaurant prices plus multiple “service” fees.
  • Teaser ride/delivery ETAs and times that jump significantly after payment, viewed as intentional underestimation.
  • “Priority” fees to get a driver or delivery sooner, with skepticism that it truly improves timing when many people pay it.

Refunds, Credits & Support Mazes

• Common pattern: when Uber fails to deliver (wrong order, missing items, delays), refunds default to in‑app credits, not the original payment method.
• Some regions report easy, automated refunds; others describe chatbot loops, inability to reach a human, or only partial credits.
• Chargebacks often succeed but can lead to effective account lockout or “ransom” balances.

Food Delivery Economics & Ethics

• Many see delivery apps as “markup on markup,” yet some urban users find the time savings worth a small premium.
• Disabled and car‑less users describe feeling trapped: they depend on these services yet are repeatedly hit by deceptive pricing and opaque “minimums.”
• Skepticism that the underlying unit economics work even with aggressive dark patterns; Uber is seen as barely profitable despite scale.

Impact on Drivers & Taxis

• Drivers report:
  • Highly opaque compensation; some claim to receive only ~25–30% of the fare while riders believe the opposite split.
  • Suspicion that drivers who accept low offers are targeted with worse pay.
  • GPS routing that lengthens trips, increasing time and costs.
• Users lament the destruction or weakening of traditional taxi systems, while noting taxis had their own problems (poor service, rent‑seeking medallion systems, scams in some cities).

Regulation, Enforcement & Broader Concerns

• Many welcome the FTC action and cite similar state laws (e.g., “if you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online”).
• Others are cynical, viewing enforcement as sporadic or politically influenced.
• Dynamic pricing and personalization are broadly criticized as enabling price discrimination with no clear consumer upside.
• Several argue that real solutions require stronger consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, or treating ride-hailing more like a regulated utility.