Can Uber Send an Upfront Pricing Lawsuit to Individual Arbitration?
Two California riders say Uber sometimes charges more than the price it shows before they book. Uber tried to make them take their dispute to individual arbitration. On November 4, 2026, a California appeals court ruled that their whole lawsuit could stay in court.
Dove A. Bogguess and Douglas John Marrone want Uber to change how it advertises fares to future riders, and they want money back for people who say they paid more than the advertised price. The court decided where they can pursue those requests. Whether Uber broke the law remains for the court handling the lawsuit to decide.
What the riders allege
Bogguess and Marrone sued in San Francisco Superior Court in December 2024 under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws. They say Uber presents the upfront fare as what riders will actually pay, then frequently charges more when it underestimates how far or how long a trip will be.
They asked to represent California riders and entities that paid more than the advertised fare over the previous four years. They want a court order stopping the pricing practice and the return of money collected above the price Uber showed.
Uber’s arbitration agreement
Uber’s terms generally require riders to resolve disputes with the company one at a time in arbitration. But the waiver in those terms also blocked riders from seeking a court order for the public’s benefit in any forum. Under California’s McGill v. Citibank decision, a contract can’t take that remedy off the table everywhere.
Uber’s own terms said that class and representative claims covered by an unenforceable waiver would go to court. The trial judge rejected Uber’s request for arbitration in July 2025. Uber appealed with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed a brief.
Who would benefit if Uber changed its pricing?
Uber said the proposed order would help only existing customers who had already booked a ride and paid more than the app showed. The appeals court looked at who would benefit if the practice stopped. Anyone who might book an Uber could see the price before accepting a ride and benefit from an order requiring accurate advertising.
That made the request one for a public injunction, a court order aimed at stopping a practice that affects the public. The riders’ separate request to get money back didn’t change who would benefit from the order.
Why the whole case stays in court
Uber argued that the court could keep the request for a public injunction and send the money claims to arbitration. The appeals court found Uber’s terms unclear about splitting the case. It applied California Civil Code section 1654, which allows courts to read unclear contract language against the party that wrote it.
Uber argued that federal arbitration law displaced that rule. The court disagreed. Arbitration depends on what the parties agreed to, and the court found no agreement to split up these claims.
Case at a glance
- Case: Bogguess v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. A174376 (Dove A. Bogguess and Douglas John Marrone, plaintiffs and respondents; Uber Technologies, Inc., defendant and appellant)
- Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, on appeal from the San Francisco City and County Superior Court, No. CGC-24-620811 (Hon. Jeffrey S. Ross)
- Panel: Simons, Acting P. J., author; Burns, J., and Chou, J., concurring
- Filed: November 4, 2026, certified for publication
- Result: “The trial court’s order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to plaintiffs.”
Sources and case materials
RideClaim.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
Hurt in a California rideshare accident?
Estimate your claim with the California calculator, then request a free case review. There is no cost and no obligation to hire anyone.
Comments
Comments are public. Please don't share private details about your own case here.