Class Action Alleges Uber Eats Misled Millions of Customers with a Sham “Direct to You" Delivery Fee
Lawsuit says Uber pocketed a "priority" fee totaling hundreds of millions of dollars a year
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A proposed class action lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accuses Uber Technologies, Inc. of charging Uber Eats customers a "priority" fee for “direct to you” food delivery, even though Uber never tells its own drivers which orders are priority in the first place.
At checkout, Uber Eats offers customers the option to pay $1 to $5 more for "priority" delivery, marked with the words "direct to you" in green text next to the surcharge. The complaint alleges that promise doesn't hold up. Uber Eats never tells its drivers which orders are "priority," it instructs drivers to pick up other batch orders before delivering the priority orders, and its drivers are free to work for other delivery apps like DoorDash and Grubhub at the same time, picking up and dropping off those orders in between delivering a “priority” Uber Eats delivery. The complaint cites dozens of customer complaints describing drivers who detoured, picked up other orders, or ran competitors' deliveries mid-route, all while the customer had paid extra for a guaranteed direct trip.
"Uber has lined its own pockets convincing people that a few extra dollars would buy them a real guarantee: no detours, no delays, food direct from the restaurant to their door," said Anna Haac, founder of Haac Law. "When a company as large and sophisticated as Uber tells you 'direct to you,' it should mean something."
"This case sits at the intersection of deceptive advertising and the fine print companies use to evade accountability," said Elizabeth Aniskevich, Senior Counsel at Singleton Schreiber. "Uber wants to profit from a premium fee without actually delivering anything extra. We intend to hold Uber accountable for its failure to deliver on its promise.”
"Uber told millions of customers their food would come directly to them. Its own courier agreements permit otherwise," said Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC. "We're proud to stand with customers who paid for a promise Uber had no intention of keeping."
The suit alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as common law fraud. It seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction barring Uber from continuing to advertise the fee as a "direct to you" guarantee.
The case, Wright v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-07753 (N.D. Cal.) was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Hassan Wright and a proposed nationwide class by Singleton Schreiber LLP, Haac Law, LLC, and Janove PLLC.
For more information about the attorneys leading the class action, please visit https://www.singletonschreiber.com/, https://haaclaw.com/, and https://www.janove.law/.
