Is Uber ethical?

The Transportation Ministry handed down an indictment Tuesday at the Tel Aviv Traffic Court against Uber Israel for operating without a license.

It was the company’s way of getting around Israeli law, which does not allow drivers who lack an appropriate license to pick up passengers and charge for rides, as many Uber drivers do in more than 10,000 cities around the world (as of 2020).

Investigations revealed company-wide issues with gender discrimination and harassment and offered recommendations, prompting Uber and its investors to take action.

Allegations of sexual harassment & gender discrimination against Uber lead to company-wide investigation - Business and Human Rights Centre

Uber fired more than 20 employees following a separate internal investigation into gender bias and sexual harassment.

Because Uber and Lyft treat drivers as independent businesses, rather than employees covered by workplace laws, the report estimates that in Massachusetts in 2023 alone, the two companies avoided paying approximately $47 million in unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation, and paid family and medical leave insurance.

Uber Used 50 Dutch Shell Companies to Avoid Taxes on $5.8 Billion Revenue: Report - Business Insider

Uber had previously disclosed details about its Dutch tax haven in 2019, when it moved its intellectual property from Bermuda to the Netherlands, but CICTAR's research sheds more light on how the company has structured its network of shell companies.

The leaked files, corporate records and research by financial experts paint a different picture of Uber’s contribution to India’s economy. They show how the company devised ways to lower its tax bill, fought tax authorities in court and used Dutch subsidiaries to conduct its main business activities in India.

By failing to disclose the data breach and paying off the hackers, Uber may have broken FTC rules and state disclosure laws, according to The New York Times.

Uber previously banned drivers convicted of murder, terrorism, sexual assault and kidnapping from operating within the company.

AMSTERDAM, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The Dutch Data Protection Authority has fined Uber €825 million ($966 million) for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them, according to an August 17 decision reviewed by ‌Reuters.

In cooperation with the CNIL, the Dutch Data Protection Authority fined UBER B.V. and UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. EUR 824,990,000 for taking automated individual decisions concerning the drivers of its platform.

The Dutch data protection authority has fined ⁠Uber €825m ($966m) for deactivating driver ⁠accounts through automated systems without ​adequately informing them, according to a 17 August decision.

“Uber has committed ‌serious infringements” by deactivating driver accounts without ‌warning or human involvement, the organization’s deputy chair Monique Verdier said in a statement.

The Dutch data protection authority fined ⁠Uber €825m (£708m) last month for deactivating driver ⁠accounts through automated systems without ​adequate notice.

AMSTERDAM, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The Dutch Data Protection Authority has ⁠fined ⁠Uber €825 million ($966 million) for deactivating driver accounts ⁠through automated systems without adequately informing them, according to an August 17 decision reviewed by ​Reuters.

"Uber has committed serious infringements," in deactivating driver accounts without warning or human involvement, the organisation's deputy chair Monique Verdier said in a statement.

In August 2026, the Dutch data protection authority fined the company €825 million (around $959 million) over automated account deactivations that it said were carried out without enough notice, though Uber has said it will appeal.

AG James Joins Bipartisan Coalition Suing Uber for Misleading Customers with Difficult to Cancel Uber One Subscriptions

Today I am taking action to put an end to Uber’s misleading tactics and get New Yorkers their money back.”

The Uber Apps connect transportation providers or couriers with consumers seeking transportation or food delivery services.

In numerous instances, Uber claims that consumers in an Uber One membership will save certain amounts off ride bookings or food deliveries compared to those without an Uber One membership, and that Uber One consumers can “cancel anytime” without additional fees.

For example, many consumers report finding charges for Uber One on their credit card statements despite never authorizing enrollment in a paid Uber One membership.

So I was charged for a month of Uber one due to lack of proper way for a user to cancel Uber one subscription.” 85.

For example, it advertises Uber One on its website, the Uber Apps, and various other media as a way for customers to qualify for certain discounts or promotions on eligible rides or deliveries by paying a monthly or annual membership fee.

Uber Misrepresents the Purported Benefits of Subscr iption Plans, including that Consumers Can Cancel Uber One Subscriptions “Anytime” 19.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

RALEIGH – Today, Attorney General Jeff Jackson and a bipartisan coalition of 22 attorneys general sued Uber for making misleading claims about its Uber One subscription service, failing to provide a simple way for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and charging customers without their consent.

Uber promoted its $9.99 a month Uber One subscription service as a way for customers to save money on rides and deliveries and told them they could cancel anytime.

The coalition’s lawsuit alleges Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One subscriptions without their consent and outlines complaints from consumers who said they found Uber One charges on their credit cards despite never knowingly signing up for the service.

Multistate Lawsuit Alleges That Uber Has Used Deceptive Enrollment, Billing, and Cancellation Practices in Offering Uber One Subscriptions

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Uber on Monday, accusing the ride-sharing and delivery company of charging users for its optional subscription service without permission and making it hard to cancel it.

The FTC claims customers are misled about savings of about $25 a month when signing up for the Uber One subscription.

“Many Pennsylvanians rely on ride-share services such as Uber, and our review found that many were deceived into negative option subscriptions and higher costs,” Attorney General Sunday said.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber used a variety of deceptive and unfair practices in offering and selling Uber One subscription services, which Uber promotes as saving money on rides and deliveries.

The FTC sued Uber in April 2025 following an agency investigation and customer complaints, according to FTC attorney Paul Mezan.

Many customers faced long wait times and delays, Mezan said, and were charged again before they could fully cancel Uber One.

The coalition of states and the FTC want money back for customers and an order stopping Uber’s alleged violations of consumer protection laws.

Uber faces legal battle as 21 states join FTC in consumer protection lawsuit | DC News Now

The Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

The complaint also alleges that Uber charged consumers before their billing date, including users whose free trial had not yet ended.

The FTC filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that Uber charges consumers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature but has failed to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges.

When signing up for Uber One, customers are wrongly promised savings of $25 a month.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Uber could face billions of dollars in fines after 21 states and the District of Columbia joined a federal agency’s lawsuit against the ride share company.

As part of its pitch to consumers, Uber One claimed that users could get $0 delivery fees and monthly savings of up to $25.

The Federal Trade Commission first filed a lawsuit against Uber in April alleging “deceptive billing and cancellation practices” in its Uber One program - a supposed money-saving subscription service.

Arizona is one of 21 states that joined a federal lawsuit against Uber

The complaint also alleges that Uber charged consumers before their billing date, including users whose free trial had not yet ended.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber used a variety of deceptive and unfair practices in offering and selling Uber One subscription services, which Uber promotes as saving money on rides and deliveries, and then making it extremely difficult to cancel the service, once enrolled.

In numerous instances, Uber claims that consumers in an Uber One membership will save certain amounts off ride bookings or food deliveries compared to those without an Uber One membership, and that Uber One consumers can “cancel anytime” without additional fees.

Uber Misrepresents the Purported Benefits of Subscr iption Plans, including that Consumers Can Cancel Uber One Subscriptions “Anytime” 19.

For example, it advertises Uber One on its website, the Uber Apps, and various other media as a way for customers to qualify for certain discounts or promotions on eligible rides or deliveries by paying a monthly or annual membership fee.

Following completion of the ride or food delivery, Uber bills the cost to the consumer, deducts fees, and remits a portion of that amount to the provider or courier.

Uber One, which the company markets as a subscription offering with delivery fee savings and other benefits, promises members $25 a month and $0 in delivery fees.

The complaint alleges that Uber repeatedly charged customers without their informed consent and failed to honor the savings and benefits it promoted to subscribers.

Uber sued by FTC and states over deceptive billing and cancellation practices | TechSpot

Uber Eats, Fantuan, and HungryPanda will pay a combined $5,195,000 in restitution, civil penalties, and damages to more than 49,000 food delivery workers to resolve violations of the City’s Minimum Pay Rate for delivery workers.

“Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Uber has funded 500,000-plus rides to bring refugees to safety, doctors to hospitals, and relief aid to frontline communities—all thanks to courageous drivers,” said Julia Paige, senior director of global social impact from Uber.

Uber has provided a number of services in Ukraine since Russia began its full-scale military invasion on the nation in February, including more than 100,000 free rides for refugees, displaced families, and aid workers. The company said it’s raised more than $5 million in charitable donations so far from both users and grants.

Uber has provided a number of services in Ukraine since Russia began its full-scale military invasion on the nation in February, including more than 100,000 free rides for refugees.

“Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Uber has funded 500,000+ rides to bring refugees to safety, doctors to hospitals, and relief aid to frontline communities — all thanks to courageous drivers,” said Julia Paige, senior director of global social impact from Uber.

“The Commercial Service team at the Warsaw embassy has been an absolutely essential partner in Uber’s work to address the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

With guidance from our team, Uber has provided free transportation for Ukrainian refugees crossing into Poland from border checkpoints to major cities where accommodation and key support services are concentrated.

Throughout the crisis in Ukraine, ITA’s U.S. Commercial Service team at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, worked closely with Uber, the popular ride-hailing service, to identify and launch a range of initiatives which included providing free transportation services to refugees and delivering frontline emergency services and supplies.

Uber Provides Transportation for Ukraine Refugees

United Ukraine Local Support Uber

Like many technology companies, Uber has been sued by a group of female engineers claiming that they were paid less than their male counterparts.

Uber has agreed to pay $4.4 million to resolve an Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner's 2017 charge of sex discrimination, the agency announced Wednesday.

A 2017 sexual discrimination charge led to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation in which the EEOC found “reasonable cause to believe that Uber permitted a culture of sexual harassment and retaliation against individuals who complained about such harassment.” As part of the settlement agreement, Uber will establish a fund of $4.4 million to compensate anyone who the EEOC determines experienced sexual harassment on or after January 2014, according to an EEOC release.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

COMPLAINT

Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that the ridesharing company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by charging fees to passengers who, because of their disabilities, take more time to enter a car.

Here, the DOJ complaint alleges three ADA violations: “Uber has failed to (1) ensure adequate vehicle boarding time for passengers with disabilities; (2) ensure equitable fares for passengers with disabilities; and (3) make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices of imposing wait time fees as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.” The complaint asks the court declare that these policies violate the ADA and to order Uber to modify its policies to comply with the ADA.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Uber on Friday, accusing the ride-hailing platform of discriminating against riders with disabilities by “routinely” denying service to wheelchair users and passengers with service dogs.

DOJ sues Uber for alleged discrimination against disabled

“Uber and its drivers also impose impermissible surcharges by charging cleaning fees related to service animals and cancellation fees to riders they have unlawfully denied service,” the lawsuit claims, alleging that Uber drivers “insult and demean people with disabilities or ask them inappropriate questions.”

Uber denies rides to passengers with disabilities, Justice Department claims in lawsuit - CBS News

The new lawsuit includes allegations from over a dozen people with disabilities, including blind passengers who alleged they experienced frequent ride denials and people who use wheelchairs or mobility aids who said Uber drivers refused to assist them or stow their devices.

The Justice Department has filed a $125 million lawsuit against Uber, alleging that the ride-sharing company discriminates against passengers with disabilities.

The EEOC said its investigation "found reasonable cause to believe that Uber permitted a culture of sexual harassment and retaliation against individuals who complained about such harassment, in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," according to a press release.

The United States further alleges that Uber violated the ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions by charging a wait time fee on rides where a rider with a disability needed more Case 3:21-cv-08735-WHA Document 43-1 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 28

The United States also alleges that Uber’s actions amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination and that the alleged discrimination against a person or group of persons raises an issue of general public importance.

On November 10, 2021, the United States filed a complaint under Title III of the ADA challenging Uber’s practice of charging “wait time” fees to passengers who, because of disability, take longer than two minutes to get in their Uber car.

On February 6, 2026, the United States filed a response to Uber’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing that, contrary to Uber’s arguments, Uber is a covered transportation company under Title III of the ADA and that the United States’ Complaint plausibly alleges that Uber violates Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations.

The United States further alleges that Uber violated the ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions by charging a wait time fee on rides where a rider with a disability needed more

The United States also alleges that Uber’s actions amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination and that the alleged discrimination against a person or group of persons raises an issue of general public importance.

In addition to the monetary damages to compensate aggrieved individuals subjected to Uber’s discrimination, the lawsuit demands that Uber pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.

The lawsuit seeks $125 million for individuals who have been subject to discrimination and previously submitted complaints to Uber or the Department.

The Department’s civil complaint alleges that Uber and its drivers routinely refuse to serve individuals with disabilities; impose impermissible surcharges by charging cleaning fees for service animal shedding and cancellation fees to riders whom Uber has unlawfully denied service; and refuse to reasonably modify Uber’s policies, practices, or procedures, where necessary, to avoid discriminating against riders with disabilities, including by denying individuals with mobility disabilities the option to sit in the front seat when needed.

Uber Commits To Changes And Pays Millions To Resolve Justice Department Lawsuit For Overcharging People With Disabilities

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 37, through its policies and practices of imposing “wait time” fees on passengers with disabilities who, because of disability, require more time than that allotted by Uber to board the vehicle.

Such discrimination includes Uber’s failure to: a. Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(i); b. Ensure equitable fares for transporting passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(d), 37.29(c); c. Make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures of charging a wait time fee as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.

In violation of the ADA, Uber has failed to (1) ensure adequate vehicle boarding time for passengers with disabilities; (2) ensure equitable fares for passengers with disabilities; and (3) make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices of imposing wait time fees as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.

Such discrimination includes Uber’s failure to: a. Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

Uber sued by DOJ, accused of discriminating against disabled riders

By Heather Somerville SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] will pay $148 million for failing to disclose a massive data breach in 2016, marking a costly resolution to one of the biggest embarrassments and legal tangles the ride-hailing company has suffered.

On Wednesday, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi announced the company will be cutting 3,300 jobs, a tenth of its workforce worldwide.

Uber is laying off 10% of its global workforce as part of a move to streamline and simplify the ride-sharing company, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in an open message to employees published Wednesday on the company's website.

Because Uber and Lyft treat drivers as independent businesses, rather than employees covered by workplace laws, the report estimates that in Massachusetts in 2023 alone, the two companies avoided paying approximately $47 million in unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation, and paid family and medical leave insurance.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff Capriole filed this class action complaint alleging that Uber has misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, when they are employees under Massachusetts law and therefore entitled to employment protections under various provisions of the Massachusetts wage laws.

Capriole also filed the pending motion, asking the court to “immediately enjoin Uber from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees” and to “require that Uber reclassify its drivers as employees and .

BACKGROUND Liu’s lawsuit challenges Uber’s practice of terminating its drivers when their aggregate passenger rating falls below a certain threshold.

BACKGROUND Liu’s lawsuit challenges Uber’s practice of terminating its drivers when their aggregate passenger rating falls below a certain threshold.

At the same time, the company is facing disputes over its treatment of drivers, including a high-profile legal battle in New York City over rules governing driver deactivations. Uber is also navigating uncertainty around autonomous vehicles as it races to become the leading robotaxi platform while cities push for stricter oversight, and competitors, like Waymo, expand their own services.

Uber Accused Of Covering Up Sexual Assault Numbers In New Lawsuit

Plaintiff John Capriole brings claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), based on Uber’s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors.1 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief [#4] seeking a preliminary injunction to immediately enjoin Uber from misclassifying Massachusetts drivers as independent contractors and to require Uber to reclassify these drivers as employees and to comply with Massachusetts wage laws.

Plaintiff John Capriole brings this action, on his own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), based on Uber’s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors.1 For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue [#12] to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and a forum selection clause is ALLOWED, and Defendants’ Emergency Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings Pending Resolution of their Motion to Transfer [#53] is DENIED as moot.

The ride-hailing company is laying off about 10% of its community operations team and asking remote employees to relocate to a city with an Uber office and work there three days a week, it said in a statement on Thursday.

Uber Layoffs: AI Prompts Cuts to Customer Service Jobs - Business Insider

The proposed Order further requires Uber to submit a report to the Commission if Uber discovers any “covered incident” involving unauthorized access or acquisition of personal information.

The proposed Order prohibits Uber from misrepresenting the extent to which it monitors or audits internal access to, or protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of, consumers’ personal information. It requires Uber to implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, and to undergo, and submit to the Commission, an initial and biennial third-party assessments of the comprehensive privacy program.

The proposed Order further requires Uber to submit a report to the Commission if Uber discovers any “covered incident” involving unauthorized access or

The Complaint further alleges that Uber failed to disclose the 2016 data breach to the Commission until November 2017, despite the pendency of a nonpublic Commission investigation of Uber’s privacy and data security practices when that breach occurred.

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing checks totaling $19,798,233 to drivers for Uber Technologies Inc., as part of a settlement with the Commission over allegations the ride-hailing company exaggerated the yearly and hourly income drivers could make in certain cities, and misled prospective drivers about the terms of its vehicle financing options.