Uber’s own fine print sinks its arbitration bid in pricing class action

That fallback proved decisive. 

The underlying complaint, filed in December 2024, alleged Uber advertised “upfront” pricing and told riders the displayed price was “the price they’ll pay at the end of the ride.” In reality, the complaint alleged, the upfront price was only an estimate – and Uber “frequently” charged more when a ride ran longer or further than expected. 

Uber argued the riders were really chasing a private remedy that would only help existing app users, not the broader public, and that arbitration should apply. The court disagreed. It held that stopping deceptive pricing on a platform anyone can sign up for counts as relief that benefits the public. In the court’s words, “Uber cannot evade consumer protection laws just because its allegedly deceptive scheme is complicated.” 

Then came the contract language. Uber wanted the court to split the case – keep the public relief claim in court but send the riders’ individual money claims to arbitration. The hitch was the word “claim” in the agreement’s fallback clause. It could mean an entire legal claim or just a specific type of relief. The court found that ambiguity fatal to Uber’s position. Under a centuries-old rule of contract interpretation called contra proferentem – where unclear language is read against the party that wrote it – the court construed the clause against Uber. 

Uber argued federal arbitration law overrode that rule and required any ambiguity to be resolved in its favor. The court rejected that too, reasoning that the US Supreme Court itself had made consent the “first principle” of arbitration law. Applying the rule here did not undermine arbitration – it simply held Uber to what its contract actually said.