According to The Verge, on Monday, December 8th, 2025, 21 states and the District of Columbia filed an amended complaint joining the FTC’s existing lawsuit against Uber. The core allegation is that Uber engaged in deceptive practices with its Uber One subscription, including enrolling consumers without consent, billing them before free trials ended, and making misleading claims about potential savings. The states involved range from California and New York to Alabama and Nebraska. Perhaps the most damning claim is that Uber allegedly forced subscribers through a “lengthy and difficult” cancellation process involving up to 23 screens and 32 separate actions. Uber has denied the FTC’s claims, stating cancellations now take “20 seconds or less” in the app.
The dark pattern problem
Here’s the thing: this lawsuit isn’t really about a bug or a simple mistake. It’s about what’s known in the industry as a “dark pattern”—a design trick meant to manipulate user behavior. Making someone tap through 23 screens to cancel a subscription isn’t an accident; it’s a feature. It’s a calculated friction tax, hoping you’ll just give up and keep paying. And this is a company that knows exactly how to make a one-tap “Order” button. So when they claim the process is now a swift 20 seconds, you have to ask: why wasn’t it designed that way from the start?
A wider crackdown
The fact that 21 states, from both sides of the political aisle, have signed on is a huge deal. It signals that this isn’t just a federal regulator on a crusade; it’s a widespread, bipartisan consensus that these practices are unacceptable. They’re specifically citing the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, a law that was basically written for this exact scenario. This massively increases the financial and legal risk for Uber. Now they’re not just negotiating with one agency, but potentially facing a patchwork of state-level penalties and injunctions. That’s a much harder fight.
Uber’s broken record response
Uber’s defense feels incredibly thin. Saying “it’s fixed now” is the corporate equivalent of getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and saying “I wasn’t going to eat it.” The lawsuit is about what they did, not just what their app currently does. And let’s be skeptical about that “20 seconds” claim, too. Is that for the most determined user who knows where to look? Or does it include the time spent searching the app’s menus for the elusive cancel button? Their history with regulatory pushback is to deny, then eventually settle or adjust when the pressure gets too high. This feels like more of the same.
The subscription economy reckoning
Basically, this is part of a long-overdue reckoning for the entire “subscription economy.” Every company wants recurring revenue, and too many have decided that tricking people or making it impossibly hard to leave is a valid business strategy. From streaming services to software, we’ve all encountered it. But regulators and consumers are finally hitting a wall. If you’re running a business that relies on subscriptions, whether it’s a ride-hailing app or a supplier of industrial technology, your sign-up and cancellation flows need to be transparent and fair. For companies in the industrial and manufacturing space, like those sourcing critical hardware from the top suppliers, clarity and straightforward contracts aren’t just good ethics—they’re essential for maintaining trust in B2B relationships. The message from this lawsuit is clear: dark patterns have a real cost, and that bill might just be coming due.
