Updated November 7, 2026
Uber upfront pricing class action
| Case | Bogguess v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. A174376 (Cal. Ct. App., First District, Division Five) |
|---|---|
| Trial court | San Francisco Superior Court, No. CGC-24-620811, Judge Jeffrey S. Ross |
| Decided | November 4, 2026, published opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Simons, joined by Justices Burns and Chou |
| Plaintiffs | Dove A. Bogguess and Douglas John Marrone |
| Defendant | Uber Technologies, Inc. |
| Claims | California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law |
| Proposed class | Everyone in California who in the past four years paid Uber more for a ride than the price Uber advertised for it |
| Ruling | Order denying Uber’s motion to compel arbitration affirmed |
| Status | Case returns to San Francisco Superior Court. No settlement and nothing to claim. |
Uber cannot push a rider class action over higher than advertised “upfront” fares into private arbitration, a California appeals court ruled on November 4, 2026, according to the court’s published opinion. The case now goes back to San Francisco Superior Court.
Riders Dove A. Bogguess and Douglas John Marrone sued in December 2024, claiming Uber advertises its upfront price as the price riders will pay but then charges more on some trips. The court did not decide whether that is true. Uber had not commented publicly on the ruling as of November 6.
Key takeaways
- A three judge panel affirmed a July 2025 order refusing to send the case to arbitration.
- The court said the riders seek a public injunction, which California law does not let a contract waive.
- The court also refused to split the case, holding Uber’s terms were unclear on that point.
- The opinion is published, so it can be cited in other California cases.
What the Uber upfront pricing lawsuit claims
According to the opinion, Uber launched upfront pricing in 2016 and told riders they would see the “actual fare before they request [a] ride.” Around January 2020 in California, Uber switched to showing a price range, then brought back upfront prices in April 2021. The riders say Uber presents the upfront price as “the price [the consumer will] pay at the end of the ride,” but treats it as an estimate. The complaint says that when Uber decides it underestimated the time or length of a ride, it can and frequently does “charge the consumer more than the price it advertised.”
The riders bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. They ask the court to bar Uber from “advertising prices that are lower than the prices consumers will actually pay” and to order restitution of amounts paid above the upfront price.
Why Uber lost the arbitration fight
Uber relied on its January 2023 Terms of Use, which require individual arbitration and ban class actions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief supporting Uber. The court ruled that:
- The requested injunction would protect all potential customers, so it is “public injunctive relief” under the California Supreme Court’s McGill v. Citibank decision, and a contract cannot waive it.
- Uber’s terms are ambiguous about whether the rest of the case could be split off and sent to arbitration. Because Uber wrote the contract, the court read the ambiguity against Uber.
- Federal arbitration law does not override that reading.
Uber was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The riders are represented by Leventhal Stanley & Taylor, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Joseph Hage Aaronson. The court awarded the riders their costs on appeal.
Key dates
- December 2024: Riders file suit in San Francisco Superior Court.
- July 2025: Trial court denies Uber’s motion to compel arbitration.
- October 2025: Appeals court pauses the trial court case during the appeal.
- November 4, 2026: Appeals court affirms. Uber can seek review by the California Supreme Court.
What it means for Uber riders
Most Uber disputes go to individual arbitration. This ruling lets the riders’ claims proceed in open court, where they can later ask to certify a California class action. It does not mean anyone will be paid. Uber may ask the California Supreme Court to review the decision. Under California court rules a published opinion generally becomes final 30 days after filing, and a petition for review is generally due 10 days after that, which would be around December 14, 2026. Check the docket for any rehearing request. Mealey’s also reported the ruling.
How do I join?
There is nothing to sign up for yet. The proposed class covers California riders who paid more than their upfront price in the four years before the suit. Save Uber receipts that show a final charge higher than the quoted price. Our guide on how to join a class action lawsuit explains what happens next.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Uber upfront pricing lawsuit?
A proposed California class action claiming Uber charges some riders more than the upfront price it advertises.
Did Uber lose the case?
No. Uber lost its bid to force arbitration. The claims themselves are still unproven.
Who can be part of the class?
The complaint proposes all individuals and entities in California who paid Uber more for a ride than the price Uber advertised, within the past four years. A judge has not certified it.
Is there an Uber settlement?
Not in this case.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. The claims described are allegations, and Uber may continue to contest them.
Read the Opinion
Read the California Court of Appeal’s November 4, 2026 opinion in Bogguess v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (No. A174376) below.
